•i *}‘ 













































































































































































































































































































































































































































4 








































































































































































































































































••• 












































































































































































































































































































































9 



























































« 
























HEARINGS 


i r \ 


BEFORE 


COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 


SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS. 


* a 


COMMITTEE 


BENJ. F. HOWELL. N. J.. Chairman. 


AUGUSTUS P. GARDNER, Massachusetts. 
WILLIAM S. BENNET, New A'ork. 

EVERIS A. HAYES, California. 

J. HAMPTON MOORE, Pennsylvania. 

DON C. EDWARDS, Kentucky. 

GUSTAV KUSTERMANN, Wisconsin. 

ADNA R. JOHNSON, Ohio. 

C. S. Atkinson, 


POLITTE ELVINS, Missouri. 

JOHN L. BURNETT, Alabama. 

JOHN M. MOORE, Texas. 

JOHN A. M. ADAIR, Indiana. 

ADOLPH J. SABATH, Illinois. 

JOSEPH F. O’CONNELL, Massachusetts. 
HENRY M. GOLDFOGLE, New York. 
Clerk. 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1910 





JKi26I 

!V° 

■ hi*. 


iUL 23 1910 

5 . t® fK 



HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Thursday , January 20, 1910. 

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon Benjamin F. 
Howell (chairman) presiding, having under consideration H. R. 
14574, H. R. 14575, and H. R. 14576. 

Others present were Representatives Hayes, Bennet, Kiistermann, 
Burnett, Sabath, Moore of Texas, Johnson, and Goldfogle. 

Mr. Bennet. As chairman of the subcommittee, I wrote to Rep¬ 
resentative Howland and asked him to be here to-day so that we 
could hear him on his bills. Since then the hearing has been changed 
to the full committee, and I now take great pleasure in introducing 
Representative Howland. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL HOWLAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO. 

Mr. Howland. In response to the courteous words of Representa¬ 
tive Bennet, I wish to say that it is a pleasure to be before the 
committee. But I desire at the outset to say that I do not come 
before you as an expert on this subject at all, but my attention has 
been called to this subject, and facts have come within my personal 
knowledge, in the execution of the laws in regard to registration, 
which, it seems to me, calls for action by this committee, and to the 
best of my ability I have embodied these suggestions in these three 
bills. I will first call your attention to H. R. 14574. That is a 
slight amendment to section 2166 of the Revised Statutes. 

Mr. Hayes. Have you the statutes there, so that we can hear what 
the law" is? 

Mr. Howland. Yes; I have them in this pamphlet, which is up to 
date. Twenty-one sixty-six is the statute, and I will read it. 

Sec. 2166. Any alien, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who has enlisted, 
or may enlist, in the armies of the United States, either the regular or the volunteer 
forces, and has been, or may be hereafter, honorably discharged shall be admitted to 
become a citizen of the United States, upon hi3 petition, without any previous decla¬ 
ration of his intention to become such; and he shall not be required to prove more than 
one year’s residence within the United States previous to his application to become' 
such citizen; and the court admitting such alien shall, in addition to such proof of 
residence and good moral character, as now provided by law, be satisfied by competent 
proof of such person having been honorably discharged from the service of the United 
States. 

This provides for the honorably discharged veteran, and does away 
with the necessity of filing a declaration of intention, authorizing him 
to become a citizen upon proof of his discharge. 


3 



4 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. Did you read all of the section, Mr. Howland? 

Mr. Howland. I read all of the section. My amendment simply 
extends to the children of honorably discharged veterans the same 
privilege which is extended to the veterans. This condition of affairs 
has been developed within my personal knowledge in the city of 
Cleveland. Many a man came to this country in early manhood 
and brought with him a family of young children. He enlisted in the 
Army of the United States, w^as honorably discharged therefrom; and 
immediately following the civil war honorably discharged soldiers 
were allowed to vote all over the northern part of the country, any¬ 
way, upon the mere production of their discharge papers or the gen¬ 
eral knowledge that they were soldiers in the civil war. 

Mr. Bennet. You do not contend that they are permitted legally 
to vote ? 

Mr. Howland. No; not at all. They were permitted by the gen¬ 
eral consensus of opinion, the sentiment in their communities; no, 
not legally. They have to take out their papers under the law; but 
that was not done. I am telling you the practice. Now, within the 
last three or four years a stricter enforcement of the registration laws, 
throughout our State at least, has been carried out, and before an 
elector can register, if he is foreign born, he must produce his natu¬ 
ralization papers. This has resulted in establishing the legal status 
of many an honorably discharged soldier as an alien. They had no 
right to register. You demand the production of his papers, and he 
will come m and bring out his honorable discharge from the Army 
of the United States and ask to be registered on that, but of course 
the election officers would say no, and he would have to go and file 
his petition in the United States court or other court of competent 
jurisdiction and get out his papers before he could be registered as a 
qualified elector. Of course, having voted for years and years and 
years by the general sentiment of the community, which never ques¬ 
tioned his right, as his children grew up to manhood they were per¬ 
mitted to vote also, and there are many cases in Cleveland where the 
father having voted for years has been found to be an alien under the 
strict interpretation of the law, and the children also are aliens, having 
been born in the foreign country, coming here as mere children, and 
as the law now stands they have to file a declaration of intention, then 
two years later, I think it is, get their final papers. Many of these 
men are old men to-day, having held office and exercised the fran¬ 
chise from the time they became 21 years of age. It is to meet that 
condition of affairs, gentlemen of the committee, that I have sug¬ 
gested an amendment to section 2166, which appears on page 2, 
line 5, of H. R. 14574. 

Mr. Hayes. From line 5 to the end. 

Mr. Howland. Yes; “and the children of such honorably dis¬ 
charged alien, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, shall be 
entitled to the same privilege, upon the same proof of residence, good 
moral character, and the honorable discharge of the parent from the 
service of the United States.” 

Mr. Burnett. That would not relieve the status of the alien him¬ 
self? 

Mr. Howland. Oh,, no; the alien himself has to comply with the 
law. I extend the privilege to the children; that is all. 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 5 

Mr. Bennet. That is, the soldier alien. Of course, they are both 
aliens. 

Mr. Burnett. That is what I mean; I mean the original. 

Mr. Howland. That would not change his status, and has nothing 
to do with it. He must file his petition. I am simply giving the 
children of the alien veteran the same privilege extended to him, 
and it seems to me it ought to be done, to the best of my judgment. 

Mr. Burnett. May I ask you one word about that? That would 
be without reference to the time he had been here. An alien would 
come over here and stay one year, and he would be entitled to file 
this application. Now, then, the children would be entitled to the 
filing of it after the father had been here for one year, would they 
they not ? 

Mr. Howland. The children of the honorably discharged alien 
are to be entitled to the same privileges, on the same proof that their 
father has. Now, understand, this amendment can not apply to 
recent conditions, because the act of March 2, 1899, provides that 
none but citizens of the United States can enlist. So this law only 
cures conditions away back in civil war times. It does not apply 
and can not apply to conditions now, because the act of March 2, 
1899, prohibits the enlistment in the army, in time of peace, anyway 
of any persons who are not citizens. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Howland, ought not the word “heretofore” be 
inserted in line 6, on page 2, between “such” and “honorably,” so 
as to confine it to the class you mean? 

Mr. Hayes. So as to make it not apply to the future. 

Mr. Howland. “The children of such heretofore honorably dis¬ 
charged aliens.” I have no objection to that whatever, because the 
class I am trying to reach is a class that is brought into existence by 
the past conditions and can never come into existence now. 

Mr. Bennet. You see, if you did not put that in you might 
naturalize a man who had lived in this country only one year. 

Mr. Howland. Yes; if he was a son of an honorably discharged 
soldier. 

Mr. Bennet. As the chairman has called my attention, Mr. 
Howland, it would be conferring a greater privilege on a son of the 
veteran than on the veteran himself. 

Mr. Howland. I do not want to do that. 

Mr. Bennet.* Because the veteran has to serve three years. 

Mr. Howland. “Such heretofore honorably discharged alien,” in 
line 6. That is not objectionable to me at all. I want it to apply to 
that class of people, because many of these people are old men now, 
have exercised a franchise in Cleveland for years and years, and all 
of a sudden they are held to be aliens. It is a most embarrassing 
and distressing condition for those men, and it is a large class of men, 
and a great many of them are my German friends in Cleveland. 
Whether they were imbued with the military spirit in the old days I 
do not know. I am now talking for the benefit of my friend Mr. 
Kustermann. 

Mr. Kustermann. I thank you. 

Mr. Howland. But it is true; I know that of my own personal 
knowledge. 

Mr. Burnett. Let me ask you there again: Those last three lines, 
“shall be entitled to the same privilege, upon the same proof of 


6 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


residence, good moral character, and the honorable discharge of the 
parent from the service of the United States.” That might be con¬ 
strued to mean that all this man had to do was to prove good moral 
character and residence and an honorable discharge of the parent, 
when the child certainly ought to prove good moral character himself. 

Mr. Howland. That is the intention. 

Mr. Burnett. Of course that is the intention. 

Mr. Howland. If it does not mean it, it ought to be changed. 

Mr. Johnson. You say that same proof relates to the children. 

Mr. Howland. On the same proof of residence. 

Mr. Burnett. It might not under the construction there, the ver¬ 
bal arrangement of it; it might not require the children to prove 
good moral character. 

Mr. Kustermann. I think that is right. 

Mr. Bennet. Conversely, the child might have to prove horior- 
ble discharge from the army. 

Mr. Burnett. Exactly. I think it is susceptible of those con¬ 
structions. 

Mr. Bennet. It ought to be a little more specific. 

Mr. Howland. It has to be the same proof. I have no pride of 
authorship in this, as they say around here. I want this committee 
to take hold of this question which I bring up here and give these 
people some relief. They are,entitled to it. Now do it any way you 
can, and I will be satisfied. 

Now, 14575 is applying practically the same rule to honorably dis¬ 
charged sailors and members of the Marine Corps. 

Mr. Hayes. This applies to the future? 

Mr. Bennet. “Who may enlist.” 

Mr. Hayes. It is not the same as the one you have just discussed. 

Mr. Howland. Yes; that is right—“who may hereafter be honor¬ 
ably discharged.” 

Mr. Kustermann. That is the same as in 14574—“or may be 
hereafter.” 

Mr. Bennet. But we changed it. You see, we did not change sec¬ 
tion 2166 , except by making it apply to children. 

Mr. Hayes. This is an entirely new provision? 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Howland consents to the “heretofore.” 

Mr. Howland. This does apply to the future. 

Mr. Bennet. Excuse me just one moment. The purpose of 
14575 is simply to give the Navy and Marine Corps the same privi¬ 
leges the Army has? 

Mr. Howland. That is it exactly. 

Mr. Burnett. But it does not exist under the law now. 

Mr. Hayes. Can aliens enlist in the Marine Corps now? 

Mr. Howland. Not now. 

Mr. Hayes. Then the rule should be the same in both cases. 

Mr. Kustermann. They do, however. When I went to the incom¬ 
ing of the fleet there I asked the captain of our derelict destroyer 
whether he had any aliens there, and it finally came out that about 
half of his men were not citizens of the United States. He said: 
“We simply had to take them because we can not get others.” So 
it is all right on paper, but in fact it is not so. 

Mr. Bennet. How is that, Colonel Lauchheimer? 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 7 

Colonel Lauchheimer. We are not enlisting them now, but we 
have done so. 

Mr. Bennet. If an alien enlisted fifteen or twenty years ago^in 
the Marine Corps he is permitted to reenlist? 

Colonel Lauchheimer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. You are not enlisting them now unless they com¬ 
ply with the laws of Congress as to the declaration? 

Colonel Lauchheimer. No, sir. 

Mr. Hayes. So that this would cure it—just the same provision 
as we suggested for 14574? 

Mr. Bennet. “ Heretofore?” 

Mr. Hayes. Yes, “heretofore;” that would fix this just the same- 
as the other one without extending it into the future. 

Mr. Burnett. Only the declaration is necessary, I suppose. If 
they do not follow that up by becoming naturalized citizens, do 
you still continue them? 

Colonel Lauchheimer, We keep up our contract of enlisting them; 
yes, sir. 

Mr. Bennet. There is this to be said, that under the 1906 statute 
it is pretty hard now T for an alien in the service to be naturalized. 

Mr. Hayes. While he is the service. 

Mr. Bennet. Because he has to prove a year’s continuous resi¬ 
dence in a place by two witnesses who have known him five years. 

Mr. Johnson. Would that continuous residence not just go right 
along from the place he enlisted from? 

Mr. Bennet. I do not think it has been so construed. 

Mr. Johnson. It seems to be actual residence that is meant. 

Mr. Bennet. Actual residence. How is that, Mr. Campbell? 

Mr. Richard K. Campbell. It has been construed both ways. 
The general construction favored by the courts now is that the act 
of June 29, 1906, has no relation whatever to these excepted classes, 
and some of them have been naturalized without any reference to 
the terms of that act. 

Mr. Johnson. Should there not be an exception, gentlemen, to 
a person who is in the navy? 

Mr. Hayes. It seems to me a year’s residence on shipboard ought 
to be a year’s residence in the United States. 

Mr. Campbell. That does not give them such residence as to 
enable tha courts to take jurisdiction. 

Mr. Bennet. I have asked the representatives of the Army and 
Navy and the Marine Corps to be here, and I suggest we take that 
up after Mr. Howiand gets through. 

Mr. Howland. With reference to this Army, Navy, and Marine 
Corps proposition, I found in looking that up that that law was 
carried in an appropriation bill. 

Mr. Johnson. That is, 14576? 

Mr. 'How t land. 14575. That is carried in the appropriation bill, 
act of July 26, 1894. Consequently I could not amend that appro¬ 
priation bill very well, so we had to introduce an original section. 

Mr. Burnett. What was provided in that legislation in the appro¬ 
priation bill? 

Mr. Howland (reading): 

Any alien of the age of twenty-one years and upward who has enlisted, or may enlist, 
in the United States Navy or Marine Corps, and has served or may hereafter serve five 


8 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


consecutive years in the United States Navy or one enlistment in the United States 
Marine Corps, and has been or may hereafter be honorably discharged, shall be admit¬ 
ted to become a citizen of the United States upon his petition, without any previous 
declaration of his intention to become such; and the court admitting such alien shall, 
in addition to proof of good moral character, be satisfied by competent proof of such 

g erson’s service in and honorable discharge from the United States Navy or Marine 
orps. 

Mr. Bennet. Then this act of yours just simply extends that 
privilege to the children? 

Mr. Howland. That is all; absolutely uses the same language 
right down through, but extends the same privilege to the children. 
Mr. Hayes. What is the date of that appropriation bill? 

Mr. Howland. July 26, 1894, 28 Statutes at Large, 124. 

Mr. Burnett. Why is the five years’ consecutive service required 
in that and not in the army? 

Mr. Bennet. There are three different periods, one for the Army, 
one for the Navy, and one for the Marine Corps. 

Mr. Burnett. Why? 

Mr. Bennet. Because they were passed at different times, and 
no one paid any attention to it. That is pretty frank, I guess. 

Mr. Burnett. I am inclined to believe the five years’ proposition 
ought to apply to all of them. 

Mr. Howland. Now, gentlemen, one more matter. I thought it 
was only fair to treat the Army and the Navy and the Marine Corps 
on a parity with each other. 

Mr. Burnett. But they have not been so treated. 

Mr. Howland. No; they have not been so treated, that is apparent 
But I think they ought to be. H. R. 14756 is the next bill, which 
amends section 2172, Revised Statutes, and that is, perhaps, just a 
little complicated, and if you would care to have me read that sec¬ 
tion as it now stands I will do so. 

Mr. Burnett. Before you pass from this other, let me call your 
attention to one thing. This soldier, the one who served in the Navy 
or the Marine Corps, must have served for five consecutive years. 
That child may have been on the other side of the water all that time, 
and he can come right over here, and, without staying here the length 
of time that his father was required to serve, can be admitted, can 
he not? 

Mr. Howland. Yes. 

Mr. Burnett. Do you think that is right? 

Mr. Howland. Yes. 

Mr. Burnett. That the child that has been on the other side all 
that time- 

Mr. Howland. I do not care where he has been. 

Mr. Burnett (continuing). And knows nothing of our laws or the 
nature of our institutions, should come over here and, merely because 
his father served five years, ought to be admitted into naturalization 
at once? 

Mr. Howland. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. The labor would be on you to convince me that that 
is right. 

Mr. Howland. A man who has fought here for five years in the 
service of the Army of the United States I think would be able to take 
care of a son. 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


9 


Mr. Burnett. That is not the question. It is whether he is quali¬ 
fied for citizenship—to be naturahzed. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Burnett, if an alien comes here and stays here 
five years and is naturalized, when his oldest son is 20 years and 6 
months old, and the boy comes over here, immediately he becomes 
a citizen and can vote within six months. 

Mr. Burnett. That would be governed by the state laws. 

Mr. Bennet. I mean he becomes a citizen within six months, by 
the naturalization of his father. 

Mr. Johnson. Should not the age limit be put in here, then? 

Mr. Bennet. That is governed by the general law. There is a 
limit in w r hich they can start in to be naturalized, under the general 
statutes. 

Mr. Howland. Now I will take up 14576. 

Mr. Hayes. Read section 2172. 

Mr. Howland. This is quite a complicated section (reading): 

Sec. 2172. The children of persons who have been duly naturalized under any law 
of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law' on that subject by the 
Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the States, 
under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of the 
naturalization of their parents, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as 
citizens thereof; and the children of persons w T ho now are or have been citizens of the 
United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, 
be considered as citizens thereof; but no person heretofore proscribed by any State, 
or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the 
Revolutionary war, shall be admitted to become a citizen without the consent of the 
legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed. 

On page 2 of H. R. 14576, line 2, right after “thereof” insert the 
following language: 

Any infant coming to the United States under fifteen years of age, and who has 
thereafter resided in the United States for a period of twenty-one years, shall be admit¬ 
ted to become a citizen of the United States upon his petition, in accordance with 
the procedure in such case made and provided without any previous declaration of 
his intention, upon proof of his residence, good moral character, and upon further 
showing that he does not belong to any nationality or race not entitled to become 
citizens of the United States; but no person heretofore proscribed by any State shall 
be admitted to become a citizen without the consent of the legislature of the State 
in which such person was proscribed. 

Mr. Johnson. How about that last provision? 

Mr. Hayes. That does not need to be there, does it ? 

Mr. Howland. What is that? 

Mr. Hayes. That applied to Revolutionary times. 

Mr. Howland. I left out the particular reference to the Revolu¬ 
tionary times. 

Mr. Bennet. The States have no power to proscribe. 

Mr. Howland. I left out the Revolutionary fellows. This situa¬ 
tion exists, has developed with us to a certain extent, and I have no 
doubt it has developed in other places, where the franchise is granted 
to those who have taken out their declaration of intention. Many 
men have been voting on their declaration of intention in New York. 

Mr. Hayes. There are seven States where they do still. 

Mr. Howland. Many people, it has developed, believed that their 
declaratibn of intention papers were naturalization papers, and they 
have been voting on declaration papers for a great many years, with 
us anyway, until this enforcement of the law of registration in our 
State has developed this peculiar condition of affairs. 


10 


HEARING ON • NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. Then let me ask you, is not that matter subject 
to legislation by your State, a sort of enabling act to enable them to 
go in ? Your State insists they do not want them to vote. Ought we 
to come along and nullify your state laws by this kind of a law? 
Your State could easily amend that, if they thought they ought to 
vote. Why can they not, by some kind of enabling act, allow them 
to be excepted? 

Mr. Howland. That might be, but the United States is legislating 
along this line. Do not confuse franchise and citizenship. The 
United States has jurisdiction in the matter of citizenship. That is 
what I thought, and I thought a son of a man who has been voting 
under these circumstances for a great many years, had lived here for 
twenty-one years and was qualified in every respect for citizenship, 
ought to have his papers on his petition. 

Now, I am taking more time here than I intended on these matters, 
but in closing what I have to say, I submit this matter to your hands, 
and I want to just read you a letter from the secretary of our board of 
elections there in Cleveland, who is a man exceptionally well qualified 
to speak upon all these questions. He has given the subject great 
study, and in all fairness to him, I must say that this legislation is 
really at his suggestion. I sent him copies of the bills after I had 
introduced them, and here is what he says: 

Board of Deputy State Supervisors and Inspectors of Elections, 

Cleveland , Ohio , January 9 , 1910. 

Hon. Paul Howland, M. C., 

Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Mr. Howland: I am in receipt of yours of December 16, 1909, with the 
inclosures of H. R. 14574, H. R. 14575, and H. R. 14576. I regret that official 
business here prevented my acknowledgment of same prior to this date. 

Those bills have met with such universal approval here and my official experiences 
have so interested me that I ask your forbearance if I try to impress upon you some 
of my official experiences in connection with the election machinery of this city and 
county as to that feature of the law. You know, as secretary to this board for the past 
six years, it has been my duty to meet with thousands of complaining cases dealing 
upon naturalization, which is most natural under the existing laws in a city where about 
one-third of the voting population are foreign born. In 1907 our registration records 
show 32,117 foreign born. In 1909, 28,585. The decrease is due to the fact that the 
law regarding the production of certificates of naturalization or evidences thereof 
have been strictly enforced. 

I have had communications during the past two years with thousands of plerks of 
courts throughout the United States endeavoring to assist those who claimed citizen¬ 
ship and to obtain certified copies of their naturalization papers, and was thus able 
to trace several hundred. Our troubles here, however, were mainly where men 
claimed citizenship by their father’s naturalization, who knew nothing of, neither 
the place, date, nor court where their fathers were naturalized, except that they 
have seen their fathers vote. These men, from 21 to 70 years old, were deprived of 
their votes because they could tell nothing further except that they thought their 
fathers were citizens. Under existing laws they would be required to make a decla¬ 
ration of intention, wait two years, and then file a petition, which is on file for ninety 
days, before they could be admitted to citizenship. In addition I may say not 5 
per cent would be able to give the information required to obtain either a declaration 
of intention or final letters of citizenship. I also found a large number of men who 
have arrived in this country during their infancy, or at all events boyhood days, who 
have since changed their names, or, in other words, Americanized their ill-sounding 
or unpronounceable names to one that would more suit to American pronunciation, 
and of whom, of course, only about 1 per cent have had the good judgment to do so 
by proper process of law. 

Again, hundreds of cases in which men have exercised the right of franchise by 
the common error of assumption that a soldier having served in either the army or 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


11 


navy of this Government became a citizen by his oath when entering same. Con¬ 
sequently, the sons until now have been permitted to vote, some of whom now have 
reached the age of 60 and over. 

Your bills would, in my judgment, remedy all of the above-mentioned evils, and 
with the slightest degree of inconvenience enable all such that desire to take advan¬ 
tage of the same to forever settle the question of their citizenship. 

It is hardly fair to assume that those 3,532 who have not registered this year have 
heretofore taken advantage of the laxity of the enforcement of the above-mentioned 
law and were not eligible to vote. My personal opinion on the matter is that not 
being able to produce the necessary evidences they would rather remain away from 
the polls than have their honesty questioned, and yet the'right to citizenship was so 
circuitous and with so many obstacles in the way that they could not undertake to 
obtain the same. I have felt, and do now feel, very keenly the responsibility if, 
perchance, we have under those conditions deprived those who were honestly entitled 
to their vote. I may add that I have had about fifty or more cases in which the 
records of naturalization were destroyed by fire such as Chicago, Cincinnati, San 
Francisco, and others, and the sons can not give the desired information as to dates, 
witness, etc., as required by those different States, which would also be eliminated with 
these bills. 

I trust that your effort on behalf of your bills will meet with success, and that you 
will be able to convince those who have these matters in charge of the justness of 
your bills, and again offering you my apologies for intruding upon your most valuable 
time, I remain, 

Very truly, yours, A. J. Haas, Cleric. 

Now, I have taken a great deal of time and 1 thank you for your 
courtesy. I leave this matter in your hands, having called atten¬ 
tion to a condition which actually exists which, in my judgment, 
should receive some action at the hands of this committee. I thank 
you very much. 

The Chairman. The committee will take this matter up and look 
into it. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Chairman, I asked the representatives of the 
War and Navy departments and the Marine Corps and Mr. Campbell 
to be here. I do not know about the order of precedence, but I 
think the committee would be glad to hear these gentlemen briefly. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. GEORGE B. DAVIS, JUDGE-ADVO¬ 
CATE-GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY. 

General Davis. Some time during the civil war, or shortly after its 
close, if I remember correctly, the present legislation facilitating to 
some extent the naturalization of a discharged soldier was enacted. 
This legislation was enacted, I think, with regard to the services of the 
volunteers rather than out of any consideration for the persons who 
might subsequently enlist in the Army or Navy or Marine Corps, for 
at that time there was no restriction in point of citizenship, nor was 
there until, I think, 1894 (sec. 2, act of Aug. 1, 1894; 28 Stat. L., 
216), when it was provided for the first time that no person could 
enlist for the first time who was not a citizen of the United States or 
who had not signified his intention to become such. During the short 
period of the war with Spain that requirement was suspended, but 
it became operative again at its close. 

Mr. Burnett. By law, General? 

General Davis. By law; one of the statutes that authorized the 
raising of volunteer forces. (Sec. 12, act of Mar. 2, 1899; 30 Stat. 
L., 979.) 

Mr. Burnett. .Not by executive order? 


12 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


General Davis. No; by statute. We would not presume to tres¬ 
pass upon the field of legislation. 

Mr. Burnett. In matters of necessity at that time I did not 
know what the practice would be. 

General Davis. Certainly. So, as the'matter now stands, an 
alien can not enlist unless he has received a certificate of naturaliza¬ 
tion or has signified his intention to become a citizen. Coupled 
with that is the requirement that he must also be able to read, write, 
and speak the English language as a condition precedent to enlist¬ 
ment. The result is that most of the recruits in the army who are 
of foreign birth—and the number of them is rather small—have been 
in the United States upon an average of from a year and a half to. 
two years before they enlist at all, so as to enable them to acquire a 
knowledge of English and to make that preliminary declaration. 
They go on and serve, some of them, one enlistment of three years, 
some of them enough to make thirty years of service. They are 
ambulatory; they have no fixed residence; that is to say, one enlists 
in Maine and is discharged in San Francisco. If he intends to leave 
the service he wants to settle somewhere in San Francisco or in the 
West. In a great many cases they desire to settle at places very 
distant from their places of nativity. To execute the existing 
statute, which is embodied in section 2166, gives them great trouble. 
It makes it practically impossible for them to become citizens in the 
operation of that statute on account of the conditions of residence 
that have to be proved. All these men have served for three years 
under the close observation of officers of the army and navy. 

It is not an easy thing to get an honorable discharge. It means in 
the army that the service rendered during that three years’ period 
must have been honest and faithful, so that an honorable discharge 
means a great deal. It means that the soldier has been under the 
constant observation of officers for three years. It means that he has 
been trained in a great many things and has established a high char¬ 
acter as a soldier. It would greatly relieve that class if some legal 
account could be taken of that three years’ period of trial, terminated 
by an honorable discharge, and taking also into account the fact that 
they have been in this country a year and a half or two years before 
they enlist at all; in this way the five-year period is substantially 
covered, and if the condition precedent to naturalization could be 
restricted to the honorable discharge, it would greatly relieve a very 
considerable number of men in the Army and Navy and Marine Corps 
who have served faithfully one enlistment under the observation of 
the officers, have received honorable discharges, and desire by the act 
of becoming naturalized to become a part of the political community 
in which they have established themselves. 

Mr. Burnett. Now, they have already filed an application before 
they enlisted? 

General Davis. They must have done that, and they must be able 
to read, write, and speak English. 

Mr. Burnett. The purpose of that would be, then, merely to con¬ 
summate the original purpose as manifested by that declaration? 

General Davis. Yes, sir. Something like this might be adopted 
as the closing clause: “Any alien of the age of 21 years and upward.” 
I should say there is no question of children here; that does not 
appear. They must be single men to enlist. A relatively small 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 13 

number of enlisted men may be married, noncommissioned officers 
of the higher grades, men belonging to the Hospital Corps, for whom 
quarters are provided, and the question is not so material with them; 
but the ordinary soldier must be unmarried. So there is no question 
of children here or of the naturalization of children, but only of 
giving a certain weight to the character that the soldier has estab¬ 
lished under three years’ close observation by his officers and the 
evidence of that character as given in his honorable discharge 
[reading]: 

Any alien of the age of 21 years and upward who has enlisted or may hereafter enlist 
in the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps, or in the yolunteer forces, and has been or may 
hereafter be honorably discharged, shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United 
States upon his petition, and shall not be required to prove residence within the 
United States previous to his application to become such citizen, and the court admit¬ 
ting such alien shall be satisfied in respect to the moral character of the applicant 
by competent proof of such person having been honorably discharged from the military 
or the naval service of the United States at the expiration of a legal term of enlistment. 

Mr. Hayes. Now. General, is this the proposed statute? 

General Davis. That is the proposed modification. 

Mr. Hayes. That is what I thought. The existing law does not 
go that far. 

Mr. Burnett. Is that Mr. Howland’s bill? 

General Davis. No; this is one I drew a good while ago, but it is 
merely a suggestion. 

Mr. Burnett. I see. I did not understand this. 

Mr. Sabath. Is there a large number of aliens now in the army or 
navy, or is there only a small number? 

General Davis. In the army the great majority are now native- 
born citizens. The number or aliens is not very great. 

Mr. Sabath. How was it during the Spanish-American war? 

General Davis. That clause was inserted as a measure of precau¬ 
tion, it not being known whether voluntary enlistments would be 
numerous or not, and it was thought to be wise to suspend that 
requirement during the period of the Spanish w T ar. It made very 
little difference in the Regular Army. The same class of people en¬ 
listed there. 

Mr. Sabath. Could you approximately give about the percentage 
of aliens in the army? 

General Davis. It would be safer for the Adjutant-General to give 
it. If you wish, I will ask him to have it prepared for you. 

Mr. Sabath. He has the records? 

General Davis. He has records for each enlistment. They must 
show affirmatively that the applicant has conformed to the condi¬ 
tions, either submitted a certificate of naturalization or evidence of 
his preliminary oath. 

Mr. Burnett. That would be continued in here how long; before 
he can file his application or his declaration of intention he must 
remain here how long? 

General Davis. At any time, but within two years of the close of 
the five-year period. 

Mr. Burnett. Now, then, you do not allow them to come in until 
how long after they have filed their declaration—immediately? 

General Davis. Immediately. An alien comes here, gets work, 
and passes from one thing to another, but finally concludes he wants 


/ 


14 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


to enlist, and if he has taken out his preliminary papers he produces 
them; if he has not, he is required to obtain them. 

Mr. Burnett. Then he has to be in the army three years before 
he can get an honorable discharge? 

General Davis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. The law absolutely enforces that; there are none 
except those who present those declarations who are allowed to 
enlist ? 

General Davis. The enlistment is unlawful otherwise. 

Mr. Burnett. Then he is bound to have been here three years? 

General Davis. Yes, sir, and as nearly as I can estimate, he must 
have been in the country between four and a half and five years. 

Mr. Hayes. A discharge for disability before the term of enlistment 
has expired is not accounted an honorable discharge? 

General Davis. It is an honorable discharge, but I made no mention 
of it in that draft. Those cases are not very frequent, but the thing 
that has brought it to the attention of the department is the corres¬ 
pondence from most excellent soldiers who have served their time 
faithfully, have saved up a little money, and want to establish them¬ 
selves as members of a political community somewhere. They do 
not know anybody; they can not produce anybody who can testify 
as to what they have been doing. The certificate of honorable 
discharge is evidence of three years’ residence under constant obser¬ 
vation of people competent to observe the moral character of the 
soldier or sailor, and it would relieve that hardship and enable them 
to identify themselves with a community. That desire is very strong. 

Mr. Burnett. Let me ask you there, you say that they are dis¬ 
charged on account of disability sometimes ? 

General Davis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. Under the broad terms of this bill, even if a man 
serves six months and is honorably discharged on account of some 
disability, this bill would apply to him, would it not ? 

General Davis. No, sir; he must be in at least three years. In the 
navy it is four years, I think. 

Mr. Kustermann. Could it not be so changed as to apply also to 
this? It seems to me wrong. 

Mr. Johnson. Under this it would go on the same length of time. 

General Davis. There are a number of discharges given before the 
expiration of the term of service to a man to whom that form of relief 
from the operation of his enlistment should be afforded. The men 
who ask us to do something to help them are men who have served, 
in a majority of cases, eight or nine years. They have served long 
enough to save up a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars in the 
army or navy, and they want to establish themselves somewhere. 
Now, a man may procure his discharge on account of dependency of 
a parent after a year. A man enlists, looks forward to the condition 
of his parents, and he says to himself, “I can not enlist unless my 
parents can look out for themselves/’ and after satisfying himself 
that they are provided for, or that he can provide for them, then he 
enlists. Now, one of them may die. So the law authorizes, after a 
year, if there has been a change in the conditions of dependency, that 
he can be discharged. That would be after a year’s service. He 
may purchase his discharge at any time in the discretion of the Sec¬ 
retary of War. He may be discharged for disability. But it did 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


15 


not seem necessary to meet those cases where they had served only 
a part of one enlistment. If one comes in and buys his way out, or 
goes out to support his parents, the chances are that that man’s 
parents are American citizens. The cases that come to us for dis¬ 
charge are, in a majority of cases, where the male head of the family 
has died and left a widow with considerable property on her hands 
to look after and no other children than the soldier. 

Mr. Burnett. General, why should this be extended to apply to 
the children? Suppose the child of this foreigner had never been to 
this country ?. 

General Davis. To whom? 

Mr. Burnett. To the children of these people. 

General Davis. We have no concern with the children of these 
people. 

Mr. Burnett. That is the bill of Mr. Howland that is under con¬ 
sideration. What would be your recommendation with regard to 
that? 

General Davis. They could have no children while they were 
connected with the United States as enlisted men. 

Mr. Burnett. You never enlist anyone except single men? 

General Davis. That is the rule. If a married man is enlisted it 
requires the permission of the Adjutant-General. It is only given 
in very exceptional circumstances. 

Mr. Burnett. Then in those cases do you think a child that has 
never been to this country ought to be permitted to come right over 
and be naturalized within a short time ? 

Mr. Bennet. How could a man serving in the Army of the 
United States have such a child? His wife would have to take a 
special trip over in order to have the child over there. 

Mr. Hayes. She might have been over all the time. 

Mr. Bennet. Then that would not be his child. 

Mr. Sabath. But there are cases where married men do enlist? 

General Davis. A very limited number. 

Mr. Sabath. From time to time I have requests from wives of 
men who have enlisted, asking me to secure a release of the husband. 

General Davis. They were married, perhaps, after they enlisted. 

Mr. Sabath. No. I have had a great many cases—not a great 
many, but I know myself of at least a half a dozen or a dozen cases 
in my own district—where a young man would marry, and on account 
of a little trouble at home or on account of not being able to secure 
work, especially in 1907, a good many of them enlisted, and after they 
had been in for a few months the wives would come to me and ask 
if I could in any way assist in securing their release. 

General Davis. Those men all swore that they were single. Those 
little tragedies will happen. 

Mr. Burnett. Like a lot of minors that would swear they were of 
age. I will tell you, I believe that the burden ought to be placed on 
the War Department to ascertain whether they are minors before 
they are taken. 

General Davis. Certainly. 

Mr. Burnet. We have been trying to get that through, but it has 
been fought by the Military Committee all the time. 

Mr. Bennet. I would like to ask the General just one question. 
Mr. Campbell called my attention to the fact that your suggested bill 


16 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


does not touch one thing. Under the naturalization law a man, in 
order to be naturalized, has to be one year continuously within the 
jurisdiction of the court. 

General Davis. That is a thing that works the greatest hardship 
to discharged soldiers and sailors. Their residence is constrained, 
you know. Suppose one is serving in San Francisco Harbor; he may 
serve there three years, but that is not a residence that he can prove. 

Mr. Burnett. But the residence is presumed to be where he filed 
his declaration. 

Mr. Sabath. He would have to produce two witnesses to swear 
that he has resided in that district there for at least three years, or 
five years, and where can such soldier or sailor obtain such witnesses 
or prove his residence? 

Mr. Hayes. What particular hardship would it be to a soldier or 
sailor to settle down and live for a year in a community before he 
applied for naturalization, any more than it would be for anybody 
else ? 

General Davis. It would not be a hardship if he did not have to go 
to a distant jurisdiction. 

Mr. Bennet. He has to get witnesses who have known him five 
years. 

Mr. Hayes. I think not, though; this is existing law here. 

Mr. Bennet. Under the naturalization statute. 

Mr. Hayes. This is an exception. 

Mr. Burnet. The naturalization statute did not amend this old 
law. 

Mr. Sabath. Still, all the judges insist that you bring your wit¬ 
nesses who have known your applicant five years. 

Mr. Hayes. Not if they have been honorably discharged, because 
they are excepted in the law. He has to prove only one year. 

Mr. Sabath. I do not know about that. 

General Davis. If a clause were inserted requiring one year’s resi¬ 
dence at the place where he proposes to establish himself, that would 
diminish the hardship very greatly. 

Mr. Hayes. I think that is the existing law, is it not? 

General Davis. I do not remember. The point is that it is very 
difficult to apply this civil-war statute to the ambulatory cases of 
enlisted men in the army and navy, who enlist in Maine and are dis¬ 
charged in San Francisco, and so find it impossible to comply with 
that statute. 

Mr. Burnett. General, of course the main purpose of those natural¬ 
ization laws and those requirements is to give them a probationary 
period within which to prepare themselves for citizenship. Now, 
then, do you think that a man who came over here, filed his declara¬ 
tion, and at once enlisted in the army and was in that ambulatory 
condition, perhaps went to the Philippines at once, or to Cuba, or 
somewhere else, would be a fit subject for citizenship without having 
some residence here? 

General Davis. I think so, with that training. He is obliged to go 
to school. There may be occasional periods of very active operations 
when he can not go to school, but the law requires that they be taught 
the rudimentary branches and the history of the United States, and 
those schools are maintained, and the instruction in citizenship, I 
should say, which they receive in the course of a three-year enlistment, 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 17 

is at least as great in amount as he would acquire in the ordinary civil 
community. 

Mr. Burnett. You mean your army schools? 

General Davis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. Leavenworth, and schools of that character? 

General Davis. The schools that are maintained at every post. 
The enlisted men are required to be taught. 

Mr. Johnson. General, would he not acquire more information 
and more knowledge about our Government in that way than he 
would in the ordinary community? 

General Davis. Yes; because he is a part of the military arm. For 
instance, the regiments that went to Cuba during the intervention to 
establish a stable government there watched the development of 
affairs from day to day. So it is in the Philippine Islands. So it 
was in Porto Rico. They are practically part of the Government, 
they are engaged in the operations of the Government, to a very 
considerable extent. 

Mr. Burnett. Not the civil part of it so much, however. 

General Davis. But they are told constantly that the civil power 
is supreme in this country. When one of them goes to town and gets 
a drink or two too many, and, coming from abroad, wants the post 
commander to send over a detachment to take him away forcibly, 
he is told that is not done in this country; that in this country the 
civil power is supreme, that the army is subordinate to it. I do not 
know when an enlisted man or a noncommissioned officer who was put 
in a position that required him to use judgment in the execution of 
his duties in that regard in our insular possessions or elsewhere has 
failed in his trust. They are very conservative constitutional 
lawyers. 

The Chairman. General, we are very much obliged to you for 
appearing before the committee. The information you gave was 
very interesting. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COMMANDER H. A. WILEY, OF THE 
UNITED STATES NAVY. 

Mr. Bennet. Now, Commander Wiley, will you please give us 
any observations you may desire? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. I suppose, sir, that you desire 
me to follow about the same lines as General Davis, so far as applies 
to the navy? 

Mr. Bennet. Except that if your views are the same as his, it 
may not be necessary for a repetition. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. I mean you want me to give my 
views along those lines? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. What we desire is a modification 
of the act. It at present requires five consecutive years' service in 
the navy and a full enlistment in the Marine Corps, and we think 
that ought to be changed to apply to the navy, a full enlistment in 
the navy and also four years' service in the naval auxiliary service, 
which is a part of the navy at the present time—that means 
colliers and hospital ships and other vessels manned by civilian 
crews—and to remove this restriction which requires ninety days' 

49090—10-2 


18 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


residence previous to the final action of a court on an application 
for naturalization. When this bill was finally made a law the 
period of enlistment in the Marine Corps was five years, was it not, 
Colonel Lauchheimer? 

Colonel Lauchheimer. Yes. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wtley. The period of enlistment in the 
navy was three years. In order to make the same service necessary 
in both branches the law was made to read that way—a full enlist¬ 
ment in the Marine Corps or five consecutive years’ service in the 
navy. Since then the enlistment in the Marine Corps has been 
reduced. 

Mr. Burnett. To what? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. To four years, and the period of 
enlistment in the navy has been increased to four years, and the five 
years requirement there now, of course, takes a man over into his 
second enlistment after he has received an honorable discharge from 
his first period of service, and it is very difficult sometimes for a man 
to be at the place where he had filed his petition, you know, previous 
to final action, especially in the navy, because he might be in any 
part of the world. It is impossible for us to keep track of the cases 
of aliens in order that we may be able to place them in the jurisdic¬ 
tion of any particular courts. If that period were made four years 
and the restriction requiring that he should be ninety days within 
the jurisdiction of any particular court and that he should bring 
proof of good moral character by witnesses resident in that district 
were abolished, that is all we would ask. 

Mr. Hayes. Would it not be more desirable to make the period the 
same in all branches of the service? The law now requires three 
years, as I remember it, for the soldier. Why not make it the same 
for the sailor and the Marine Corps ? It seems to me that would be 
equitable. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Yes; that would be desirable. 

Mr. Burnett. For uniformity, at least. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. I was only speaking for the navy. 

Mr. Hayes. You see no objection to that, do you? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. No. In fact, that applies to 
merchant sailors now. I do not know exactly why it is, but the re¬ 
strictions on merchant sailors are very limited. They can become 
citizens of the United States simply by serving three years honor¬ 
ably as merchant sailors; there is no other requirement at all. 

Mr. Burnett. Is that by law or a custom? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. By law—1875. 

Mr. Johnson. And a man who serves in the army honorably and 
sincerely and bravely can not? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. No, sir; I do not think so. 

Mr. Bennet. He has to prove a year’s residence in the United 
States. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. No matter if he serves five years— 
the law requires five consecutive years in the navy. 

Mr. Burnett. Do you have the same requirement that the judge- 
advocate spoke of in regard to their having to present their declara¬ 
tion before they can enlist in the navy and marine service? 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


19 


Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. No, sir; but we do not enlist 
aliens except for the insular forces, which means Filipinos. We 
carry 500 Filipinos, as a maximum, as an insular force; but while the 
law does not forbid the enlistment of aliens, we do not enlist aliens. 

Mr. Burnett. You enlist men who are foreign born, of course, 
very frequently? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. People who have been in the serv¬ 
ice previously we reenlist. 

Mr. Burnett. You do not now enlist any man foreign born if he 
has filed a declaration? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. If he is an alien we do not. 

Mr. Burnett. If he has filed his declaration of becoming a citizen, 
do you enlist him ? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. That fact has no bearing. 

Mr. Burnett. Suppose he has perfected his naturalization? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Then he is a citizen. 

Mr. Burnett. He must have perfected his naturalization, then, 
before you enlist him ? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Yes, sir; but there is no law which 
requires us to pursue that course; that is an executive order. Of 
course, at the present time we have in the navy, to be absolutely 
accurate, about 1,890 aliens. That includes, of course, the insular 
force. 

Mr. Bennet. What is your total strength? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Last year, when this list was made, 
44,290, and only a little over 4 per cent were aliens. 

Mr. Johnson. Four per cent aliens? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. And most of those are in the insular force? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. No; the maximum in the insular 
force is 500. So you see there are a good many others who are not in 
the insular force, about 1,250 or 1,300. 

Mr. Burnett. They are old enlistments, though, are they? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Reenlistments; yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. There are no new enlistments, then, except those in 
the insular force? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Absolutely none. 

Mr. Burnett. This bill of Mr. Howland’s contemplates allowing 
the children to come in. What is your view in regard to that ? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Of course, that might have a 
bearing which I do not understand; I am only speaking from a 
limited interest. We do not ask for that. We ask for nothing as 
regards the children of aliens. We only ask that they be permitted to 
become citizens without unnecessary annoyance. That is all. It is 
very difficult for them to become citizens now. 

Mr. Bennet. Commander, is there not a regulation in the navy, 
or a statute—I do not know which—that a sailor can not get a pro¬ 
motion until he becomes a citizen ? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. No; he can get a promotion, Mr. 
Bennett, but it deprives him of certain emoluments ana certain stand¬ 
ing. He could not get what we call a permanent appointmen as a 
petty officer. 


20 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. He can not enlist now, as I understand ? 

Mr. Bennet. No; but an alien who is in the service can not get 
a permanent appointment as a petty officer. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. A man who reenlists in the navy 
after his first period of honorable service and discharge is entitled to 
$5 additional pay; but if he is not a citizen of the United States he 
is not entitled to that $5; he is excluded from that benefit. When¬ 
ever a man is made a petty officer in the navy, which corresponds to 
a noncommissioned officer in the Army and Marine Corps, he gets an 
appointment on paper which he holds for a period of a year as a pro¬ 
bationary office. At the end of the year, if he is recommended for it, 
he may be issued a permanent appointment, and that is on parch¬ 
ment, something in the form of a diploma from a school. That car¬ 
ries with it this benefit, that he can not be deprived of it except by 
sentence of a court-martial. His commanding officer, even though 
he has been promoted by his recommendation, can not reduce him 
except by sentence of a court-martial. A man holding an acting 
appointment can be deprived of that appointment and sent back to 
his previous rating simply by the order of the commanding officer. 
You see that is a protection to a man, of course, and an alien can not 
enjoy that privilege. He can get his advancement, but he can not 
get the protection that others get by a permanent appointment, and 
not being able to get a permanent appointment he can never become 
a warrant officer in the navy, which is another great hardship, because 
we have some most excellent men who otherwise would make fine 
warrant officers, but they are not eligible to be examined for the 
position. 

Mr. Burnett. Is that by law or by executive order? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. That is departmental regulation, 
sir; not law or executive order either. 

Mr. Sabatii. I would like to ask you a question. You do not find 
the same hardship in securing enlisted men for the navy as they do 
in the army, do you. You are not obliged to advertise and spend 
as much money to secure them ? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. We spend a good deal, sir. It is 
difficult to keep the complement up under present conditions because 
every young man who presents himself for enlistment is required to 
present a birth certificate, or affidavits setting forth his age, unless 
it is plainly evident that he is over 21 years of age, and although we 
can enlist them as young as 17 years, with the consent of parents, if 
a young man is less than 21 years old he must present this evidence. 

Mr. Burnett. A birth certificate from the parent ? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Either from the parent or guard¬ 
ian or the record. 

Mr. Bennet. We amended that law last year. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. In the appropriation bill it read 
something like this, that “No part of this appropriation’ 1 —that is, 
the naval appropriation bill, pay of navy—“ shall be available un¬ 
less’ ’—the essence of it was unless a certificate is required of all 
minors. Of course we are not tying up the appropriation for any¬ 
thing of that kind. 

Mr. Sabath. That is, if it appears they are minors, but if they swear 
they are 21 years of age? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. It is. not accepted. The recruit¬ 
ing officer is subject to court-martial if he accepts any such evidence. 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 21 

Mr. Johnson. It is a question of absolute proof, a court record or 
an affidavit? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. If there is no question—if I went 
to a recruiting officer he would not hesitate to accept me as 21 years 
or over. But if it is not perfectly evident on the face of it that a 
man is 21 years of age he must produce a birth certificate or affidavit 
setting forth his age. In other words, the conscience of the recruiting 
officer is not elastic at all; he is not permitted to have an elastic 
conscience. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Is that the rule now for enlistment in the navy, 
that a man must be 21 years of age? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. He is not required to be 21 vears 
of age. 

Mr. Goldfogle. But does the law now require the production of 
a birth certificate ? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Yes, sir; either a birth certifi¬ 
cate or documentary evidence in the form of affidavits from the 
parents or other evidence which leaves no doubt of the man’s age. 
Sometimes he can secure the evidence when he can not secure the 
birth certificate. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Is it not a fact that a number of applications 
have been made from time to time for the discharge of enlisted men 
on the ground that they were under the age and had not the parents’ 
consent, and that a birth certificate had not been produced at the 
time of enlistment? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. He would have had the birth 
certificate or the consent. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Not that, but a great many applications are 
made from time to time for the discharge of young men who had 
enlisted when under age and had not produced birth certificates or 
any other proof than their own affidavits. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. That is true, in a w’ay. 

Mr. Goldfogle. It is true? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. It is true only to a limited degree. 
It is true that they had not produced birth certificates, but had pro¬ 
duced in every case evidence which had been accepted. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Their own affidavits. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Not an affidavit of the man him¬ 
self, but somebody purporting to be his parent or his guardian. 
Those cases seem to be very frequent, sir, but as a percentage they 
are very small, and it has been shown in every case that perjury had 
been committed. But the recruiting officer has, in every case, at¬ 
tempted to discover the truth before enlistment was made. 

Mr. Kustermann. Would you have the kindness to give us that 
bill? We have only four minutes more time. We would like to 
hear the bill you have prepared. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Yes, sir. This was the draft of a 
bill that was prepared by the department, and I went over it very 
carefully at the time. It reads as follows: 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled , That any alien of the age of twenty-one years and upward who 
has served or may hereafter so serve for one enlistment of four years in the United 
States Navy or Marine Corps, and receives an honorable discharge, or an ordinary 
discharge with recommendation for reenlistment— 

I would like to explain what that means. It is simply this, that 


22 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


there are two forms of honorable discharge in the navy. One is what 
we call an honorable discharge, which entitles a man to a gratuity of 
four months pay if he reenlists within four months. The other is 
called an ordinary discharge, and does not carry with it that gratuity. 
But it means that his service is perfectly honorable [continuing 
reading]— 

or who has completed four years of honorable service in the naval auxiliary service— 

Those are the vessels I spoke of a moment ago as being manned 
by a civilian crew— 

shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States upon his petition without 
any previous declaration of his intention to become such, and without proof of resi¬ 
dence on shore— 

The courts have held, I believe, that it is not necessary for him to 
prove his residence on shore if he has spent his time on a United 
States vessel, and the same should apply to the Marine Corps— 

and the court admitting such alien shall, in addition to proof of good moral character, 
be satisfied by competent proof from naval sources of such service— 

That is really a repetition of the old bill in that particular para¬ 
graph— 

Provided ,— 

And this, of course, is the essence of the change— 

That an honorable discharge from the Navy, Marine Corps, the naval auxiliary service, 
or an ordinary discharge with a recommendation for reenlistment shall be accepted 
as proof of good moral character. 

It is pretty hard for a man, you know, to produce proof of good 
moral character by residents. In nine cases out of ten, if produced, it 
is worthless or purchased, because men who do not have homes can 
not produce it rrom residents who know them. 

Mr. Burnett. He can prove it by his comrades. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. It is difficult sometimes to set 
them. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Is there any limit fixed in the proposed measure 
between the time of making the application for naturalization and 
the time when the discharge is granted? 1 want to make myself 
plain. For instance, if there was an honorable discharge granted, 
say, in 1910, and then no application made for naturalization until 
1915, there would be a lapse of five years. Yet the court would not 
have before it any evidence of the good character of those five years 
and would be bound under this bill to accept the certificate of honor¬ 
able discharge as absolute proof of this man’s good character at the 
time of the application for naturalization. Do you think that ought 
to be cured in the present bill ? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. I had not seen that point._ 

Mr. Goldfogle. You see the point now, do you? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Johnson. But the discharge itself is practically a judicial 
finding. 

Mr. Burnett. At that time. 

Mr. Johnson. That all those years he has been in the navy he 
has conducted himself honorably. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Yes, but during five years, in the case instanced, 
there would be no evidence that he had conducted himself at all, 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


23 


and there might be acts which would not entitle him, in the judg¬ 
ment of good, honorable citizens, to citizenship. 

Mr. Johnson. After he comes out of the navy that would be 
brought to show his character under enlistment. 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. I think the point is very w r ell 
taken, and I think that there would be no objection to putting that 
sort of a proviso in. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Since you are so familiar with the subject, I 
would ask you whether offhand you could suggest a proviso that you 
think ought to be added ? 

Lieutenant-Commander Wiley. You might say one who reenlists 
within four months. 

Mr. Bennet. Perhaps Colonel Lauchheimer would like to say a 
few 7 words to us before we leave. 

Col. Charles H. Lauchheimer. I would like to say on behalf of 
the Marine Corps that the comments made by General Davis and 
Lieutenant-Commander Wiley apply with equal force to the Marine 
Corns. It is just a question of modifying section 2166, and the draft 
of the bill which Lieutenant-Commander Wiley has presented to you 
gentlemen fully covers the entire question so far as the Marine Corps 
is concerned. 

Mr. Bennet. So you do not desire to attend any further meetings 
we may have? 

Colonel Lauchheimer. I would be very happy to be here. 

Mr. Burnett. You have no suggestion to make in regard to the 
Howland bill taking in the children? 

Colonel Lauchheimer. That is a matter to which I have given 
absolutely no consideration, and, as General Davis said, we do not 
enlist men who are married. Some subsequently do get married. 

The Chairman. We are very much obliged to you gentlemen for 
the information you have given us. 

(Thereupon, at 12 o’clock noon, the committee adjourned until 
to-morrow, Friday, January 21, 1910, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.) 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Friday, January 21, 1910. 

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. Benjamin F. 
How T ell (chairman) presiding. Others present were Representatives 
Bennet, Burnett, Elvins, Hayes, Johnson, Moore of Texas, Kiister- 
mann, and Sabath. 

STATEMENT OF ME. EICHAED K. CAMPBELL, CHIEF, DIVISION 
OF NATURALIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND 
LABOR. 

» 

The Chairman. Mr. Campbell, would you like to make a state¬ 
ment in regard to bill 14576? 

Mr. Campbell. I am not prepared to make any statement; if the 
members of the committee desire to ask me any questions I shall be 
glad to answer them. 

Mr. Bennet. Well, we will ask the general question: What is 
your opinion of bills 14574, 14575, and 14576? 



24 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


Mr. Campbell. Those are the three bills that Mr. Howland took 
up yesterday? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Campbell. Well, it seems to me that the real difficulty in the 
way of carrying out Mr. Howland’s plan might be very readily 
removed, by simply exempting people of that description from filing 
a declaration of intention; they can surely wait the ninety days 
after filing a petition under such a law, and allow the examiners to find 
out whether they are men of good moral character; in other respects— 
their knowledge of English, their knowledge of our institutions, and 
their residence here—they are entitled to be naturalized immediately. 
The point he made yesterday was that these sons of veterans, who 
had voted, would be compelled, in order to become citizens, to file 
a declaration and wait for two years; now, by exempting them from 
filing a declaration, they can file their petition at once. I think I 
am on record as advocating the abolition of the declaration anyhow; 
I certainly do not see any fault that would flow from it in this case, 
because their fitness would be passed on by a court, after an exam- 
ination and report to that court had been made. So far as the other 
points are concerned, I can see no objection to them, if the Govern¬ 
ment reserves its right to make an investigation and have the court 
pass upon the qualifications of persons in each instance. I do not 
think it would put them to any serious disadvantage. 

Mr. Bennet. What did you think of the opinion of General 
Davis and Commander Wiley, that a discharge ought to be at least 
proof of good character for the time it covered ? 

Mr. Campbell. I think it is even better proof than the proof we 
have to rely on generally; there is no question about it. A subor¬ 
dinate of an officer in the military or naval service of the United 
States is subject to much more continuous and close observation than 
a man in civil life is from his neighbors, and a discharge ought to be 
a sufficient verification of his character, qualifications and duration 
of residence. It seems to me that in cases of that sort the purposes 
of the law would be accomplished by abolishing, as far as such peti¬ 
tioners are concerned, the one year residence within a State. 

Mr. Bennet. If within the jurisdiction of the court? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. And as to the ninety days’ delay after 
filing a petition, those dela} 7 s are for the purpose of securing evidence 
as to the man’s character, and if it can be accomplished through these 
other means, certainly there is no use in delaying the matter just for 
the sake of uniformity, especially in view of the fact that it does occa¬ 
sion very serious hardship. I have known of repeated instances of 
such hardship in the cases of seamen. I recalled yesterday, in con¬ 
nection with the suggestion made by Mr. Bennet, a case of a seaman 
who filed his petition in San Francisco, and before it could be heard, 
that is, before the expiration of the ninety days after filing, he was 
seht to Washington. He came into my office and said he had filed a 

P etition there and that two days afterwards he was ordered away; and 
e stated to me that the reason for being very anxious to get it now 
was that he was entitled to a promotion and that he could not get it 
until he became naturalized. To be sure, that class, in view of what 
was said yesterday, is one that is limited in number, and if the present 
policy is persisted in the supply will soon be exhausted; but there is 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


25 


no assurance that the present policy will be persisted in, unless Con¬ 
gress passes some law forbidding the employment of aliens in the 
military and naval services. If a man comes into the United States 
to-day and he files a declaration of intention, without any conditions 
attached to it of any sort, it is received as a matter of course; the only 
case in which there is ever any delay is where a clerk is bold enough to 
assume that he is not a “white person,” but that does not occur very 
often. 

Mr. Hayes. Don’t you think there might be danger in abolishing 
the ninety days’ interval between the filing of the petition and the 
hearing in this: Perhaps there would not be any danger in having 
these honorable discharges counterfeited, but they might pass from 
hand to hand and men be naturalized who are not entitled to it at all. 

Mr. Campbell. They would subject themselves to a very severe 
penalty. Still, there is something in that suggestion. I merely 
make that as a suggestion, so far as it is a reason for investigation; 
you know within a few days that matter could be investigated. 
Still, ninety days is a very small matter; I only added that. The one- 
year interval ought to be abolished and the ninety days, if possible, 
in view of the concrete illustration which I cited. 

Mr. Bennet. Couldn’t a law be drafted containing these differ¬ 
ent provisions—first, abolishing the declaration of intention as to 
people mentioned in Mr. Howland’s bill; second, providing that an 
honorable discharge should be proof of good moral character during 
the time it covered? 

Mr. Campbell. And of residence? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, and of residence; and that where a man desired 
to be naturalized while still remaining in the service that that should 
be done by proof by his commanding officer that he was still in the 
service. 

Mr. Campbell. That would accomplish it. 

Mr. Bennet. The one year and the ninety days could both be 
abolished. 

Mr. Campbell. Exactly; that would accomplish the purpose ad¬ 
mirably. 

Mr. Hayes. I doubt whether it would be safe to abolish the ninety 
days. 

Mr. Campbell. I have been thinking of it. My statement was 
made in view of the general position I have held, that these exemp¬ 
tions are made anyhow to men who are actually engaged in the serv¬ 
ice, and I do not think there is any great hardship on a man who has 
left the service to wait his time. 

Mr. Bennet. But his honorable discharge ought to be proof of resi¬ 
dence and good character for the time it covers? 

Mr. Campbell. Precisely; just as conclusive as the proof of the 
two witnesses. 

Mr. Bennet. It is better. 

Mr. Burnett. Then if he did not apply at once it shall not be fur¬ 
ther evidence as to any time except that embraced in his term of 
service ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes; that is the idea exactly. While we are on the 
subject of those exemptions, I would like to ask the committee if it 
does not think it would be a wise plan to draw a general bill covering 
all classes of service in the United States Government, either civil or 


26 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


military, such service as puts applicants in a position which makes it 
impossible for them to comply with the requirements as to residence, 
and permit the Government to secure from a man's superior officer a 
statement that would be equivalent to an honorable discharge issued 
by the military and naval authorities. We have the Coast and Geo¬ 
detic Survey; they have such persons in their employ. The chief of 
that service called regarding the hardship on the employees in his 
service of requiring strict compliance, as to residence, with the law. 
Of course, as I said to him, that would be with reference merely to 
people who had been engaged heretofore, because I believe at the 
present time an applicant for appointment under the classified civil 
service rules must be an American citizen. But they have had men, I 
know, foreigners, who desire to become naturalized, and the vessels 
on which they are occupied are constantly away at irregular times, 
so they can not specify any particular dates. 

Mr. Hayes. You think this same exemption should apply to them? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. I think it would be well to repeal those 
sections, beginning with section 2166 and ending with the act of 1894, 
and try to cover all those classes in the bill, because it will remove 
a great deal of doubt, some of the courts holding now that a petitioner 
under sections 2166 or 2174 under no condition has to comply with 
any requirements of the act of 1906, although he files his petition 
under that act. 

Mr. Bennet. I make a motion that the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor be requested to have drafted for the committee a bill remodeling 
the statutes that are not embraced in the naturalization law of 1906 
covering these points: W aiving the declaration of intention as to the 
parties mentioned in Mr. Howland’s bills; providing that an honorable 
discharge of a soldier, sailor, marine, as well as the auxiliary force 
of the nation, shall be evidence of both residence and good moral 
character for the time covered by the discharge, and that as to any 
persons of the classes mentioned who desire to be naturalized while 
still remaining in the service, upon affidavit from his commanding 
officer as to identity, good moral character, and facts of service, the 
provision as to one year’s residence and ninety days’ delay be waived, 
together with such other changes as he deems advisable. 

Mr. Sabath. Why waive only as to those that still remain in the 
army and navy on the ninety days? Why not as to the others? 
If the others have served the country and have been in the army or 
navy for three or four years, they no doubt are honorably discharged 
and no doubt can prove that they are deserving to become citizens. 
Therefore why impose the additional restriction of ninety days? 
These ninety days, if I am not mistaken, are for the purpose of giving 
our investigators opportunity to investigate, notwithstanding the 
fact that the two witnesses have testified to the good character of the 
applicant—to give our investigators an opportunity of investigating 
and reporting. Now, then, if these men have been in the service 
for three or four years and have these honorable discharges, why 
should they be obliged to wait ninety days? 

Mr. Hayes. There is no hardship placed upon those people. 

Mr. Sabath. Well, there is this hardship: They are discharged 
and they- 

Mr. Hayes. They are not in the service and have a place of 
residence. 



HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


27 


Mr. Sabath. Well, these men, in many instances, I believe, will 
be induced to join the army in order to become citizens, frequently 
believing that that will aid them in a great measure, and they do 
not like, perhaps, to wait ninety days; I think it should not be 
necessary for them to wait ninety days if they have been in the 
service. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Goldfogle asked the question which brought it 
to our minds—what guarantee have we that a man who has served 
and has been honorably discharged has had a good moral character 
since he has been discharged? 

Mr. Sabath. What guarantee have we if they have secured 
citizenship that they are not liable to do something in the future that 
may, perhaps, be considered a violation or offense or crime? 

Mr. Bennet. We have adopted them; that is a different thing. 

Mr. Hayes. The gentleman probably had in mind the thousands 
of frauds perpetrated upon this country by certificates of naturaliza¬ 
tion being brought here by foreigners from abroad. What would 
prevent the use of an honorable discharge of a soldier, especially if he 
happened to return to Europe, by scores of others to be naturalized? 

Mr. Sabath. I myself have no knowledge of any fraud, only 
such fraud as I have heard of being perpetrated in the city of New 
York by the issuing of some few fraudulent naturalization papers. 

Mr. Hayes. There are thousands of them in San Francisco. 

Mr. Sabath. I know none have been committed in our city with 
the exception where a clerk, by reason of gross negligence, failed to 
register the names of applicants in the proper record. 

Mr. Johnson. Could 1 make one suggestion? It occurs to me there 
ought to be proof of their identity so there may be no question. 

Mr. Campbell. That is what the investigators do. 

Mr. Burnett. That is way the ninety days' interim is given? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. You are waiving it as to those who are still in the 
service, providing an affidavit is procured, according to Mr. Bennet's 
suggestion, from the commanding officer, that the applicant is still 
in the service and that he is the man to whom this honorable dis¬ 
charge relates? That can be secured in a very little while. 

Mr. Johnson. When a man presents an affidavit that he ig still in 
the service, that he has served so long, his discharge showing his term 
of service, and so on, should there, not be some additional proof of his 
. identity ? 

Mr. Bennet. That is furnished by his captain. 

Mr. Campbell. Well, after all, the court has to be satisfied, and 
most of the courts, particularly of late, are very careful about it. 
You see, if a man goes out, his residence has to be proved, not only 
his fitness, Mr. Sabath. 

Mr. Sabath. I thought we had talked about that yesterday, that 
the limitation should be that he should make an application within a 
year after being—well, say six months after he has been discharged 
from the army. 

Mr. Johnson. It has not been a hard matter to show his residence 
before and during that period of six months ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir*. 

Mr. Hayes. He maintains a residence during those six months 
that he is out of the service. 


28 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


Mr. Sabatii. I may have more experience and knowledge of these 
matters than a majority of you gentlemen, because from my district, 
I venture to say, I have a larger number of young men that enlist than 
in any other district, perhaps, in the United States, and I know that 
these boys, after they get through, do not know just exactly where to 
settle; they may try a few weeks here and try to obtain a fair position 
and may not succeed, and they go somewhere else; if you do not 
offer them every opportunity, sometimes they secure a position where 
it is hard for them to go and secure papers; they go away out in the 
country, or go out in a place where they are obliged to spend several 
days in procuring such naturalization. Of course, if they stay in 
Chicago- 

Mr. Kustermann. Are those aliens that you are speaking of? 

Mr. Sabath. Yes, sir; aliens. 

Mr. Burnett. Let me ask you a question. In the hearing yester¬ 
day it was stated that those who enlisted in the army had to file their 
declaration of intention before enlistment—I believe that was stated 
yesterday. Does that apply to the navy and army now? 

Mr. Campbell. I do not know the laws under which they enlist the 
men. 

Mr. Bennet. It was stated that that did not apply. 

Mr. Burnett. Your suggestion is to abolish that requirement—the 
declaration before enlistment? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. My suggestion, as a matter of fact, simply 
relates to that class of soldier or seaman who is delayed for two years 
after he has performed his military service in order to file his declara¬ 
tion, and he must wait the two years prescribed by the law before he 
can petition. Now, if he has, as a matter of fact, filed his declaration 
he can get it at once; that is, within ninety days; but if we abolish 
the ninety days by the first term of the court he can be naturalized. 

Mr. Burnett. Would not your suggestion, the effect of it, cause 
them to join the army without having filed any application at all? 

Mr. Campbell. The War Department, I think, makes its own con¬ 
ditions as to entering the service. 

Mr. Bennet. The statute of 1894 prohibits anyone from enlisting 
unless they file a declaration. 

Mr. Burnett. Wouldn’t your suggestion repeal that? 

Mr. Campbell. I don’t think so. My suggestion refers to a class 
of people who enlisted when there was no such requirement, it seems 
men whose sons have reached the right age of 60 years, in some cases. • 
It relates to those who served during the civil war. My suggestion 
was to call attention to the injustice of first having to file a declara¬ 
tion and then wait for two years; simply to abolish the declaration 
and let them file petitions immediately and submit to the other pro¬ 
visions of the law; that that would sufficiently protect us and at the 
same time give them the rights to which they had no claim before. 

Mr. Bennet. That would affect all these inconsistencies in the 
naturalization laws and statutes? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hayes. Suppose we required, in all arms of the service, before 
any person shall be listed, that he shall declare his intention? 

Mr. Campbell. That would remove the trouble as to the future, 
but I understand Mr. Howland’s bill is drafted to meet the situation 



HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


29 


which now exists, in which he claims that great hardships are incur¬ 
red by men who have practically lived all of their lives here and 
voted under the full impression that they were citizens. Now the 
registration officers are more careful, since the new law went into 
effect, and those persons are thrown out, and I think it is a great 
injustice and hardship. 

Mr. Burnett. Could not the State take up this matter and pass 
enabling legislation in this connection? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, we are not attempting to legislate them into 
the capacity to vote alone; there are other rights of citizenship. If you 
pass a bill of this sort they become citizens and besides acquiring this 
political privilege they will acquire many others; they will acquire 
the status of an American citizen for protection abroad, which is very 
important. We are all the time meeting with very pathetic cases of 
people who are denied protection abroad. 

Mr. Burnett. Denied protection by their own countries as well 
as our own? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hayes. If a State did undertake to sanction such a thing, the 
moment they left the State, they would again become aliens? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. Mr. Howland's statement aroused my 
sympathy, because there are men, hundreds or thousands, in these 
States who were not denied the privilege of voting and are under 
the full conviction that they are American citizens; I know scores of 
such instances; and it is a very natural conclusion to reach. They 
have had certain privileges granted to them, the right to vote and so 
forth, and they say, “What more can I get if I am an American 
citizen?" Take the average man and he will not see that there is 
any more to get by paying $2 for something additional; he says, 
“I have got all I want." But when an emergency comes, he finds 
that he has not all he must have. If the Government is going to 
take control of this question, and acknowledge that these people 
have some sort of equitable claim, they should go so far as to pro¬ 
tect them in the enjoyment of these rights and have these rights 
clearly discriminated, so there can not be any error on their part, a 
very natural error, as to what they have got to do to become citizens. 

Mr. Burnett. Some of his bills go further than that. If a man 
comes here and enlists, wdiether a child has ever been here or not, 
after he has been discharged, his bills enable that child to become a 
citizen. 

Mr. Campbell. That is another case. 

Mr. Burnett. I want to hear Mr. Campbell on those propositions; 
they do not strike me with much favor. 

Mr. Campbell. They do not strike me individually with any 
favor; I was never impressed with the justice of the provisions we 
now have in the law and which we have had there for many, many 
years, by which, if a man himself should become naturalized his 
children, whether qualified or not, were made citizens at the age 
of 21 years. 

Mr. Bennet. Was not the law worse than it is now T ? That if a 
man took out a declaration of intention and died before perfecting 
his naturalization, his wife and children immediately became citizens ? 


30 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; on taking the oath of allegiance they 
immediately became such; now, they have to file a petition—and that 
is a partial concession to my view—and submit to all the provisions 
of law that were required of those having filed petitions. 

Mr. Hayes. Don’t you think we would be reasonably safe if we 
should adopt Mr. Howland’s suggestion as to the past, and then 
for the future have a provision that before a man enlists he must file 
his declaration, and that if he has left the service he is subject- 

Mr. Sabath. That is the law now. 

Mr. Hayes. No; it does not exist in the army. (Continuing.) 
Subject to the provisions of the law now existing as to matter of 
residence. 

Mr. Campbell. I should think so, Mr Hayes. But that is a 
question of policy to which I have never given any serious consid¬ 
eration. 

Mr. Hayes. If you see any objections, will you kindly indicate 
them to the committee? 

Mr. Sabath. A great many aliens served in the Spanish-American 
war, and, if I am not mistaken, the law was suspended during that 
time, and any alien was accepted in the army as well as in the navy. 
Is that not true? 

Mr. Campbell. I am not prepared to say whether it is so or not; I 
think it might have been so under such an emergency. 

Mr. Sabbath. And there are a great many of these men who 
served during the Spanish-American war who are now not citizens; 
is that not true? 

Mr. Campbell. I really could not tell; I have not looked into the 
subject. 

Mr. Hayes. There could not be a great many who served in the 
Spanish-American war. 

Mr. Sabath. Oh, yes. How are they in the navy? 

Mr. Campbell. I do not know anything about the conditions. I 
do not know anything officially as to the conditions under which 
they enlist the men. A statement was made yesterday by Comman¬ 
der Wiley, I think, that they enlisted nobody that could not produce 
evidence of citizenship, but that they reenlisted those who had been 
enlisted prior to 1899. 

Mr. Burnett. In the few cases he mentioned there were some 
exceptions. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes; but I have never gone into that detail at all; 
I have no knowledge on the subject. 

Mr. Burnett. I think Mr. Bennet’s motion is a correct one. 

(Mr. Bennet’s motion was thereupon agreed to.) 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


31 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday , January 25, 1910 . 

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. Benjamin F. 
Howell (chairman) presiding. Others present were Representatives 
Bennett, Burnet, Elvins, Goldfogle, Hayes, Kiistermann, and 
Sabath. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES H. PATTEN. 

Mr. Hayes. I would like to have Mr. Patten heard by the com¬ 
mittee, if there is no objection. 

The Chairman. All right, there is no objection. 

Mr. Hayes. I would like, Mr. Patten, to have you discuss first the 
matter off the increase in the head tax which this bill provides, bill 
H. R. No.|13404. 

Mr. Patten. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: It 
seems to me that phrase “head tax” is a misnomer, as it does not 
accurately characterize the nature of the tax. In the first act 
levying it, that of August 3, 1882, it was called a “duty,” and per¬ 
haps then was, as characterized in the marginal caption, a “head 
tax,” and may have been, as claimed by the steamships, added to the 
passage money by the transportation companies. But under existing 
law and conditions the sum of $4 is “levied on” and “collected 
from” the steamship companies for every alien brought to this 
country. 

My point is that the words “head tax” do not accurately character¬ 
ize the nature of the levy collection and its incidence, for the reasons 
that the immigrant to-day as a rule knows nothing of the tax, and 
in my opinion, and in the opinion of most students of the question, 
does not pay it in the sense that steerage rates are increased solely 
because of it or would be proportionately less were it decreased. 
The present tax of $4 does not seem to be shifted by the steamship 
companies to the immigrant, but seems to come out of their profits. 
The steamship companies have formed a gentlemen’s agreement and 
divided up the foreign territory from which immigrants come into 
three spheres. They have an agreement, for instance, for fixing 
steerage rates, according to the testimony of Gustav H. Schwab of 
the North German Lloyd, who appeared before the industrial com¬ 
mission in 1899. During the latter seventies and early eighties the 
steerage passenger rate fluctuated from as low as $12 up as high as 
$25, but averaged about $17 or $18, I believe. In the latter eighties 
and early nineties, as testified to by Mr. Schwab and others before the 
industrial commission (Vol. XV), most of the foreign steamship 
companies—there were no native companies—gradually increased 
the steerage rates to about $38 or $39, varying with the port, 
size of vessel, and conveniences. Steamships not in the agree¬ 
ment or pool abided by the rates fixed. That state of facts, which 
is testified to by the representatives of the steamship companies, 
shows that they fix steerage rates on the principle of monopoly 
price—that is, they fix the rate where they think it will bring them 
the greatest aggregate profit for the traffic—they “charge the traffic 
all it will bear.” 


32 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Kustermann. Wouldn’t they make it lower if they didn’t 
have to pay this $4 ? 

Mr. Patten. I do not believe they would, for the reason that 
present rates prevailed in 1899, when the tax was only $1, and does 
not seem to have been increased in 1903, when the tax was doubled, 
nor in 1907, when it was again doubled; and, on the other hand, 
when this so-called “head tax” (but which I should prefer to follow 
a distinguished member of this committee (Mr. Gardner) in calling 
a “per capita steamship tax,” or “steamship per capita tax”) was 
last doubled—that is, increased from $2 to $4—July 1, 1907, steerage 
rates fell some instead of rising. Quite recently they have been 
advanced, according to newspaper reports, from 50 cents and 75 cents, 
as the result of a meeting of this joint conference of steamship rep¬ 
resentatives in England. I do not recall whether it was at Liverpool 
or London that the meeting was held. I think those two facts 
show- 

The Chairman. What are the rates charged now? 

Mr. Patten. They vary from about S36 to $38 and $39, depending 
upon the port, vessel, and so forth. Thirty-seven dollars and fifty 
cents is commonly quoted as the average. 

Mr. Burnett. The steerage rate, you mean? 

Mr. Patten. Yes; that is what I understand from the best infor¬ 
mation I have been able to obtain. 

Mr. Burnett. I understood you to state a while ago that they 
varied from $16 up to $18? 

Mr. Patten. That was during the seventies and eighties, before 
this combine was formed. They went up as high as $25 and down 
as low as $12, I believe. 

Mr. Kustermann. They then had a rate war? 

Mr. Patten. That ran over a number of years, Mr. Kustermann. 
That is perfectly true; there was competition then—what the trans¬ 
portation companies call “ruinous, cut-throat competition”—which 
was effectually eliminated by this pooling, or gentlemen’s agreement, 
or combination. The point is, there is a combination or effective agree¬ 
ment amounting to a practical monopoly so far as rates in general are 
concerned. Competition is eliminated and they do charge—combina¬ 
tions are said to charge on the principle of what is called “monopoly 
price;” that is, they fix the figure at the price that will yield them 
the greatest possible aggregate profit. That is what the steamships 
certainly seem to be doing in the matter of steerage rates. I do not 
believe the additional head tax of $10 provided in this bill would 
cause much, if any, of a rise in rates, for the reason the steamships 
are now charging the steerage traffic all it will bear. I referred to 
those two instances—the increase in the steerage rate, without any 
increase in the per capita steamship tax, and the maintenance of and 
falling of the rate, in the face of a 300 per cent increase in the per 
capita steamship tax, or so-called “head tax,” between 1899 and 
1908. 

Mr. Kustermann. Isn’t the increased rate caused by the fact that 
meats and so forth are so much higher now than then—that they are 
compelled to charge more now? 

Mr. Patten. Well, there are many contributing forces; for instance 
some say high prices are due to combinations alone; otheTs attribute 
them to protective tariffs, and so forth. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 33 

Mr. Kustermann. The cost of provisions is more to-day than it 
was then? 

Mr. Burnett. The increases were made before the cost of pro¬ 
visions became so great. 

Mr. Patten. It followed immediately on the heels of this com¬ 
bination or conference, the getting together, the gentlemen's agree¬ 
ment, or whatever they may call it; and it followed gradually. 

Mr. Hayes. I want to suggest to Mr. Kustermann that he would 
hardly claim that these foreign steamship companies buy their food 
in this country. 

Mr. Kustermann. Quite a little. 

Mr. Burnett. On their return trip they might make purchases 
here, but when they bring these immigrants to this country I do not 
imagine they make purchases in this country. 

Mr. Kustermann. They tell me they get part of it here; they get 
their vegetables here, and some meats, too. 

Mr. Hayes. But the greater quantity they do not buy in this 
country ? 

Mr. Kustermann. They buy where they can buy the cheapest, 
of course. 

Mr. Patten. It does not seem to me that a tax of S10 could be 
shifted to any great extent upon the steerage passengers. I do not 
believe it would be, because the steerage traffic is being charged all 
it will bear. Now, as to the need for an increase in this revenue. 
That is shown, for instance, by the fact that the urgent deficiency 
bill, which passed yesterday, carried a large deficiency appropria¬ 
tion for the Immigration Service. In the second place, it is shown 
by the fact, as Chairman Tawney said yesterday, that the immigrant 
fund was abolished July 1 last, as a result, chiefly, of there being a 
deficiency, or a threatened deficiency, in that special fund one year 
ago. The immigrant fund was a special fund composed of “head- 
tax” moneys and was used for defraying the direct expenses of the 
Immigration Service. I have here-; 

The Chairman. Wouldn't there be a deficiency in the immigrant 
fund for all expenses were it not for the fact that the law provides 
that after so much has been received the rest shall go into the Treas¬ 
ury of the United States? 

Mr. Patten. Pardon me, but I will take up that point in connec¬ 
tion with the financial statement to be found in the annual report of 
the Commissioner-General for the year ending June 30, 1908. 

Mr. Kustermann. Before you proceed, who are you representing 
here? 

Mr. Patten. Well, that is a hard question to answer short of a 
couple of paragraphs, I suppose, but at present- 

Mr. Kustermann. I wanted to know whether you were here in 
person or- 

Mr. Patten. I am not representing the Government, of course. 
I am secretary of the Immigrant Kestriction League that has its, 
you might say, domicile in Boston, Mass. Then, too, I am chairman 
of the national legislative committee of the American Purity 
Federation, whose president, Mr. B. S. Steadwell, has his office at 
La Crosse, Wis., and indirectly I represent certain other associations, 
organizations, and societies. I might say, though, that I am here 
more as a result of my own personal interest in the problem than any¬ 
thing else. 

49090—10-3 





34 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Kustermann. I simply wanted to know. 

Mr. Burnett. I would like to state that Mr. Patten came at the 
request of Mr. Hayes, a member of this committee, to. make this 
statement. 

Mr. Hayes. He has this data in his mind and I have not. 

Mr. Patten. I would like to add that I came without making any 
special preparation further than glancing over some data on the way 
from the court-house, where my profession, that of an attorney, took 
me earlier in the morning. According to the financial statement to 
be found in the report of the Commissioner-General, for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1908, the balance at the beginning of that year, 
July 1, 1907, in the “immigrant fund” was $3,079,515.26;wdiereas 
at the close there was a balance on hand of only $550,917.04. That 
shows that the disbursements for that year, the fiscal year of 1907, 
exceeded the receipts, as far as the immigrant fund was concerned, 
by $2,163,825.95, but the actual receipts from this steamship per 
capita tax was only $2,500,000, whereas it should have been three 
and almost a half million dollars, the difference being covered into 
the general receipts of the Treasury, rather than paid into the special 
immigrant fund, owing to the limitation imposed by the act of 
February 20, 1907. The actual deficit or actual excess of disburse¬ 
ments over receipts w~as $618,277.63, even though the largest num¬ 
ber of aliens in our history entered the country that year—-that is, 
1,438,469 aliens. Now, these facts, for instance, this financial 
statement of that year- 

The Chairman. Have you the receipts of last year and the ex¬ 
penditures ? 

Mr. Patten. No, I have not; I am sorry, Mr. Howell. 

Mr. Burnett. One reason for that deficit, I suppose, was because 
of the falling off of immigration during the panicky times, wasn’t it? 

Mr. Patten. No, I believe not; for that was the largest year’s 
immigration in the history of our country; almost a million and a half of 
aliens came to the United States. The precise number was 1,438,469 
aliens for the fiscal year of 1907, I believe. 

Mr. Hayes. That is the largest year we have ever had. 

Mr. Patten. Yet the disbursements exceeded the receipts by over 
a half-million dollars. Now it is perfectly true that there were 
several items that year, several of a million dollars each carried over 
from the previous year, while there were always both debit and credit 
items carried over in respect to that fund; that year is an exception; 
but the fact cuts both ways, for it explains the extraordinarily large 
balance at the beginning of the year. Whichever way the fact is 
argued, there was left only a balance of half a million dollars in the 
immigrant fund at the end of the fiscal year of 1907. I would like to 
say, too, in connection with that balance, that the Government, 
during the eighties and nineties, made a number of appropriations 
for the Immigration Service, and even to-day makes indirect appro¬ 
priations that really ought to be charged up to the Immigration 
Service. Only the direct expenses seem to be charged. If you have 
the report of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor in the room, I 
think I can show that last year there was a deficit of between two and 
three hundred thousand dollars. 

The Chairman. After including the amount covered into the 
Treasury? 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


35 


Mr. Patten. On the 1st of last July the special immigrant fund 
was abolished; the report of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
about three-fourths of the way over, contains a financial statement 
showing the expenditures and receipts for his whole department. 
Among those items is the Immigration Bureau, as a separate sub¬ 
division, and I believe certain items on the two pages of his report 
show the disbursements there exceed the 1 receipts by between two 
and three hundred thousand dollars for the immigration service 
itself. Those are the direct expenditures and do not include the indi¬ 
rect expenditures, and do not include the items in the last deficiency 

Mr. Hayes. I have understood—I have it from the best of author¬ 
ity—that the immigration service has at present a ruling to this effect: 
That the statutes of the United States do not require them to collect 
this tax from immigrants who have heretofore been in the United 
States and are returning—who have heretofore been domiciled here— 
no matter whether they have been away twenty years or not; and if 
they return, it is stated, the immigration officials not only do not 
collect the tax but they do not inspect them, they treat them as 
natives. 

Mr. Patten. Yes, Mr. Hayes, and I am informed that under the 
Straus rules and regulations there is that classification of aliens, 
and that even a returning alien, no matter whether he is suffering 
from trachoma or tuberculosis, having once been in the United States, 
and even though he has not made application for naturalization 
papers or declared his intention, is admitted. There seems to be a 
need of some legislative definition of “ alien ” by Congress, I should think. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You do not mean to say that the Secretary 
authorizes the admission of an alien who, when coming to any port 
in the United States, has a contagious or infectious disease? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir; I understand there are instances on record, 
and that such are the instructions. The state board of alienists of 
New York could furnish correspondence had with the department, 
wherein insane aliens, for instance, were admitted and allowed 
to go into private hospitals during the administration of Secretary 
Straus; the Secretary advocated such admissions openly, publicly, 
and contrary to law, it seemed to me, or rather my interpretation of 
the law. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You spoke of a direction by the Secretary or a 
construction made by the Secretary, authorizing and directing the 
admission of an alien into the United States, although such alien at 
the time had a contagious or infectious disease, providing such alien 
had at some time theretofore been in the United States.. Now, then, 
was there any official direction or any paper emanating from the 
Department of Commerce and Labor that contained such direction? 

Mr. Patten. I am not sure, but I think you will find that in 
decision 117 or 116. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Well, do you know whether it is there? 

Mr. Patten. There were a great many decisions made that were 
never printed, but I know immigration officials have told me they 
have tnose instructions. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Pardon me a moment. You have stated that 
Secretary Straus construed the law in such a way as to authorize and 


36 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


direct the admission of an alien who had a contagious or infectious 
disease. Now, that rather harshly criticises the Secretary and sub¬ 
jects the Secretary to criticism from certain quarters. Now, I want 
to know from you whether there was any such order issued or 
whether there is any report that contains such direction by Secretary 
Straus. 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir; I think- 

Mr. Goldfogle. I do not want you to guess at it. 

Mr. Patten. If you will pardon me, I know that such instructions 
must have been given, because the immigration inspectors and officials 
told me that they were so authorized. In the second place, I am 
quite sure that you will find that in decision 116 or 117; I am pretty 
sure of that. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Have you examined that decision? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir; I have; and I am very sure it is there and 
argued out at length. I have not looked at those decisions since 
about a year ago. I have not read them during the past twelve 
months. I am not sure that the instruction or rule is there, but I 
am confident the argument and all is there with reference to this 
specific point. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Did the Secretary, in the decision which you 
state bears out your statement, say what was to become of that alien 
who had the contagious disease on arriving at any of the ports of the 
United States? 

Mr. Patten. I was simply discussing the point- 

Mr. Goldfogle. I want to know that. 

Mr. Patten. Just a minute, and I will try to answer your ques¬ 
tion. My object was to simply bring out the present interpre¬ 
tation and construction of the word “alien” in partial answer to Mr. 
Hayes’s question. They distinguish between alien immigrants and 
nonimmigrants, and when it comes to .paying the head tax they dis¬ 
tinguish and have construed strictly the word “alien” to mean, as I 
understand, an alien arriving in this country for the first time. 

Mr. Hayes. That is the way I understand it. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Yes; but I was trying to get at the alleged direc¬ 
tion of Secretary Straus, to which you referred, or the document in 
which the direction you say was made by Secretary Straus is made 
or reported. I want to get that perfectly clear; I want to exam¬ 
ine it. 

Mr. Patten. However I may feel in the premises I was not trying 
to personally or harshly criticise anyone. I made the statement 
simply upon the authority of certain immigration officials, and my 
best recollection of decisions 116 and 117. The last immigration act, 
that of February 20, 1907, went into effect during Secretary Straus’s 
administration, he having taken office, I believe, on the 16th or 17th 
of the previous December. It became his official duty to supervise 
the drawing up of the regulations, the revised rules and regulations 
under which the act of February 20, 1907, went into effect, on July 
1, 1907, and was to be executed; that was all. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You have been rather guessing, have you not? 

Mr. Patten. Beg pardon; no, sir; I have not. 

Mr. Goldfogle. It seems to me you have. 

Mr. Hayes. There is no question about it at all. 

Mr. Goldfogle. If Mr. Hayes says it is so I will accept it as so. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


37 


Mr. IIayes. Well, I have it on the highest authority. 

Mr. Sabath. What became of that alien that you speak of, the 
one you said was permitted to land? 

Mr. Patten. Well, I do not know for sure. However, there is 
correspondence in the department and correspondence in the office of 
the state board of alienists, of New York State, with regard to one 
instance in particular that occurs to me. 

Mr. Sabath. You spoke of a certain case? 

Mr. Patten. The alien has never been deported, although the state 
authorities of New York have asked for deportation a number of 
times, unless very recently, I am sure. 

Mr. Sabath. What was the order or permission that the Secretary 
gave with regard to that alien being placed in a hospital? 

Mr. Patten. In a private hospital, but not in a public hospital. 

Mr. Sabath. Yes; and the cost to be defrayed by- 

Mr. Patten. By private charity; but that alien afterwards became 
a public charge, later on, I believe. 

Mr. Sabath (continuing). The friends of the alien? 

Mr. Patten. Precisely. 

Mr. Sabath. Not at the expense of the Government? 

Mr. Patten. No. But that one became a public charge later on 
for a short time, and it was then that the state authorities asked for 
the deportation and were refused, is my best recollection. 

Mr. Sabath. How many such cases do you know of? 

Mr. Patten. I do not know of so very many, because they are 
difficult to hear of. You^ill understand I do not make a specialty 
of seeking this particular kind of information. When I hear of these 
cases, I try to note them. 

Mr. Sabath. All you know is about this one case? 

Mr. Patten. I know of others. 

Mr. Sabath. How many others? 

Mr. Patten. I could not say definitely. 

Mr. Sabath. Two or three? 

Mr. Patten. Well, just a few cases; I have not made a specialty 
of collecting statistics in that particular field. 

Mr. Burnett. How about the present administration of affairs at 
Ellis Island ? Do they follow the same course ? 

Mr. Patten. I might say in that connection, if the committee will 
pardon me, that I prepared the first written charges and helped to 
prepare the second set of charges against Mr. Williams’s predecessor 
which seem to have been established to the satisfaction of the Secre¬ 
tary of Commerce and Labor and the administration. I mention this 
by way of indicating my knowledge of conditions at Ellis Island. 
There has been a complete change at Ellis Island under Mr. Williams. 
I would like to read to the committee, in this connection, an extract 
from a report made by James Bronson Reynolds bearing on this point, 
and if the committee cares to have it, I will leave the whole extract in 
order that it may be printed in the hearings. 

Mr. Burnett. I would like to hear it read now, because we are 
probably going to take up the bills directly: 

Mr. Patten. This extract seems to me to show, too, the need of a 
more liberal treatment of our immigrants at our ports of entry in the 
way of providing better facilities and employing more and better 
and competent help, and also the building of hospitals, contagious 



38 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


wards, and other facilities of that kind. James Bronson Reynolds 
in 1906 was directed by President Roosevelt—as you know he was 
referred to as one of President Roosevelt’s special investigators—to 
investigate conditions at Ellis Island with regard to the treatment 
and care of the insane and mentally defective immigrants. He made 
a report to President Roosevelt in which, among other things, he said— 
this was the time that Mr. Watcliorn was Commissioner of Immigration 
at Ellis Island: 

There is also no attendant for the common toilet, the only entrance to which is from 
the women’s section. 

He is here describing the room in which the mentally defective and 
suspected alien insane persons were detained. I have seen this room; 
was there at the time Mr. Reynolds was investigating, and know that 
what he says here is true, and know that he could have made it much 
stronger and not exaggerated the conditions then existing. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Is the building in that condition now? 

Mr. Patten. No, sir; after this report went in certain changes were 
made immediately and without any appropriation by Congress; but 
it is bad enough still, as will appear from Commissioner Williams’s 
last report: 

I was informed that the commissioner had promised last spring— 

This was in the fall— 

to provide a separate toilet for the women, but at the time of my visit in September, 
nothing had been done. I consider the situation just described scandalous. Some 
detained immigrants, if not actually insane, are of highly nervous sensibility, while 
others are moral degenerates, and the danger of driving the former into actual insanity 
and of giving free rein to the vices of the latter does not need further argument. 

Then he goes on to describe the sleeping quarters and so forth. He 
says that in that room there were from 30 to 40 immigrants—men, 
women, and children—detained, and that there was no regular 
attendant, no segregation of the sexes, and that he visited it several 
times and found the door locked, and a man on guard outside. Now, 
that* was the condition of the detention room on the second floor at 
Ellis Island in September, 1906. My point is that that shows the need 
of a more liberal provision for facilities at our ports of entry. Until 
recently Boston has had no station owned by the Government. The 
immigrants are inspected on the steamship dock and when detained 
taken to a wooden structure just across the river, at Long Wharf, for 
further inspection and examination. I believe the same is true of 
Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other points, New York being the only 
place of importance which has had, until very recently, adequate— 
and those are really inadequate—^government-owned facilities for 
examining and taking care of immigrants. 

Mr. Sabath. Do you know, sir, that this committee reported a bill 
two years ago, and the House passed the bill, appropriating $125,000 
for a new immigrant station at Boston, and also appropriated for an 
immigrant station at Philadelphia? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir; I was aware of it, but it seems to be a question 
whether Philadelphia will get her immigrant station—of course, 
through no fault of the Government. However, I do not think these 
appropriations are adequate. Let me describe to you part of the 
conditions at Ellis Island at present. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. # 39 

Mr. Goldfogle. I would prefer that you describe the conditions 
in full. 

Mr. Patten. It would take several books to do that, I fear, even if 
I could. However, there is pretty full information in regard to the 
lack of adequate buildings, space for detaining immigrants, officials, 
and so forth, here in the last annual report of Commissioner Williams. 
Perhaps I had better read several paragraphs from it. Mr. Williams 
took office the 28th of last May, and this report was written one month 
and three days after he had assumed his duties at Ellis Island. 
Among other things—and if the committee would desire to have it 
published in these hearings, and I would suggest that it seems well 
worth publishing, every word of it—I will leave it with the stenog¬ 
rapher. Mr. Williams says: 

If the immigration law is to be executed at Ellis Island with the thoroughness 
which its importance requires, both more men and more space must be provided. 
It frequently happens that 5,000 aliens arrive in one day. With the inspectors force 
at my disposal not over two minutes can be devoted to each of them at the first inspec¬ 
tion, at which over 70 per cent are usually admitted. Those held for special inquiry 
of course receive further investigation, of which I am not speaking now. The inade¬ 
quacy of the period of two minutes above mentioned is emphasized further when we 
remember that there are now 38 questions to be asked and notations made in response 
thereto on the manifest. And to accomplish even this inadequate inspection the 
inspectors must work nine hours almost continuously. The situation becomes infi¬ 
nitely worse when 5,000 arrive on each of two or three succeeding days. I see that 
in May, 1907, 150,000 arrived, or an average of 5,000 a day for each of thirty-one suc¬ 
cessive days. This may happen again, and I feel it my duty to state plainly that if it 
does, full or proper inspection will, in the absence of increased facilities, be out of 
the question, both for lack of time and lack of physical and mental endurance on the 
part of the officials. 

The question will be asked, Why should there be received at Ellis Island on any one 
day more immigrants than can be carefully inspected? My inclination, of course, is 
to take only such a number (say 3,000) and, so far as practicable, I shall act accord¬ 
ingly. But if, with an average of 5,000 a day for one month, I were to decline to 
receive over 3,000 a day it might well be charged that it was the duty of the Govern¬ 
ment to make timely provision for the proper inspection of such number of immigrants 
as were likely to arrive, so that commerce need not be improperly impeded or immi¬ 
grants unnecessarily kept aboard iron ships, oftentimes in hot weather. As the 
Immigration Service is self-supporting (or, if not, can readily be made so), there seems 
special reasons why adequate facilities ghould exist for the prompt and efficient 
transaction of all business. EVen at the writing of this report, with immigration far 
from its highest figure— 

Last year there came to this country on an average about 80,000 
aliens per month; over 944,000 all told, I think, entered the country 
last year; that is, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1909. 

Mr. Burnett. And has been increasing since? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goldfogle. It has been decreasing. 

Mr. Burnett. Since last July? 

Mr. Goldfogle. I think so. 

Mr. Hayes. As compared with the year before it has been in¬ 
creasing. 

Mr. Burnett. That is what I mean. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I have merely the statements from newspapers. 

Mr. Patten (reading): 

Even at the writing of this report, with immigration far from its highest figure, 
many of the officials are obliged to work overtime day after day. Not a few are on 
duty over ten hours. There is here a force of very willing workers, but that, I submit, 
is no reason why a large number of them should be called, sometimes for several 
days in succession, to render services involving unusually long hours. 


40 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


There does not seem to me to be work much more taxing than that 
of the immigration officials at Ellis Island, and certainly none could 
be of much more importance to the country or the immigrant than 
the humane handling of all those immigrants and the proper enforce¬ 
ment of our immigration laws. 

As regards additional space required, I call particular attention to the lack of quarters 
for the transaction of that very important branch of ours known as “special inquiry.” 
The room in which immigrants held for this purpose are detained is so inadequate 
as to be a reproach to the Government. Almost the same can be said of the room in 
which witnesses appearing before the boards are compelled to await their turn to tes¬ 
tify. There are but three proper court rooms, whereas six boards have since June 1 
frequently been in session. There should be treble the space that we now have for 
the various kinds of “special-inquiry” work, but I shall defer specific recommenda¬ 
tions until later. 

Three of these boards were compelled to meet out in the hallway 
or large inspection room. As I recall each board has three members. 
It hears witnesses and decides the fate of immigrants detained by the 
inspectors as likely to become public charges or for other reasons, 
such as contract laborers demanding a hearing, and the testimony of 
witnesses. With regard to hospital facilities, the commissioner says: 

Our hospital facilities, thanks to the recent construction of a contagious-disease 
hospital on the new island, will probably now be adequate, except that there is no 
proper ward for holding for observation cases in which it is suspected that the alien 
may be affected mentally. 

Then we come back to this detention room on the second floor, 
described by James Bronson Reynolds, who reported for President 
Roosevelt merely on the treatment of insane and mentally defective 
immigrants at Ellis Island in 1906, as a result, I believe, of complaints 
filed by the attorney of state board of lunacy of New York or the 
state board of alienists. 

Certain wooden barracks are now used for this purpose. They were never intended 
to stand permanently, and furthermore are dangerous by reason of their inflammability. 
Here, too, I shall defer specific recommendations until later, only pointing out now 
that something must be done before long. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Will you pardon me at this stage? When did you 
last examine the conditions at Ellis Island ? 

Mr. Patten. The first week in December. 

Mr. Goldfogle. How do those conditions compare with the con¬ 
ditions to which you have now referred ? 

Mr. Patten. I think there has been a complete transformation in 
conditions at Ellis Island, so far as it is within human capacity to 
change them. I think Commissioner Williams has brought that 
about unquestionably, and is doing everything a competent and 
efficient commissioner could do. 

Mr. Goldfogle. So that the conditions are fairly good, would you 
say? 

Mr. Patten. No, sir; I do not think they begin to be what they 
ought to be. I think the detention room, as you know, Mr. Gold¬ 
fogle, and the room in which witnesses are detained, are, as Com¬ 
missioner Williams says, a reproach to our Government. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I think it is. 

Mr. Burnett. It is- not the fault of the management there, but 
because of inadequate facilities? 

Mr. Patten. You will find, I think, in this urgent deficiency 
appropriation bill, which passed yesterday, that something like 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


41 


$90,000 is appropriated to make needed changes that simply can 
not wait, and ought to have been taken care of at least a year ago. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Well, they are very much needed. 

Mr. Patten. Now, in regard to the change in conditions there, I 
would like- 

Mr. Hayes. I would like to have it understood that that report, 
from which he has read, shall be incorporated as part of the hearings, 
if there is no objection. 

Mr. Sabatii. Couldn’t we get all of that out of the report of the 
immigration commissioner ? 

Mr. Hayes. Has it been published ? 

Mr. Patten. It has not been published, I am sure. 

Mr. Sabath. Has it not been published as the report of the com¬ 
missioner ? 

Mr. Patten. No, sir; but it will be published. Part of it will be, 
I think, but not all of it, I feel certain. 

Mr. Sabath. How do you know? 

Mr. Patten. I have been so informed. 

Mr. Sabath. It is queer that you can obtain this information from 
the officials when Members of Congress can not. 

Mr. Hayes. Yes; we can obtain the information. 

Mr. Patten. It was through a Congressman and an official here in 
Washington that I was given to understand that and that the annual 
report of the commissioner-general would be out the last of this 
month. 

Mr. Burnett. I would like to insert a little extract from a paper 
showing the recommendation of Mr. C. Y. Collins, superintendent of 
state prisons at Albany, N. Y. It is dated January 23. 

Mr. Sabath. Is it taken from a newspaper? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes, sir; the Washington Post. It states: 

That the recently remarkable increase in prison population in New York State is 
due largely to the influx of immigrants into the State is the conclusion of C. V. Collins, 
superintendent of state prisons, who, in his annual report to the legislature, suggests 
that the Federal Government, which permits these alien criminals to land on its 
shores, should assume the burden of maintaining them till they have served their 
sentences, when they could be deported and never allowed to return. A census of 
4,320 prisoners in Sing Sing, Auburn, and Clinton prisons showed that 1,091, or 25 
per cent, were aliens. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Don’t you think we ought to be more rigid at the 
various ports in ascertaining whether the immigrants were convicted 
of crimes in the foreign countries, and whether they were accused of 
crime and were under indictment ? 

Mr. Burnett. I think so; and we should deport them after they 
get here and become criminals. 

Mr. Patten. They are all asked that question now. 

Mr. Goldfogle. In addition to obtaining the answer of the alien 
there might be some method devised by which some fair examination 
might be made into the cases of persons suspected, reasonably sus¬ 
pected. 

Mr. Hayes. Along that line, since I have been here this time, 
since this Congress opened, I have had some correspondence with 
people in my own city. It seems that an Italian who had been con¬ 
victed and served a sentence for manslaughter in Italy was admitted 
to this country something over a year ago—nearly two years ago— 
and was living quietly in San Jose, Santa Clara County, Cal. The 



42 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


immigration officials were informed that he had been convicted of a 
crime and, on the warrant of the Secretary of the Department of 
Commerce and Labor, he was arrested and held for investigation. 
In the course of this investigation his attorney and friends there 
wrote me to exert my influence to prevent his deportation, which, of 
course, I was very fast to do. He was, by the way, deported. That 
indicates how lax our methods are in these matters. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I think we could greatly improve our methods. 

Mr. Hayes. I think we should. 

Mr. Patten. Following up the newspaper clipping which Congress¬ 
man Burnett read, I would say that, according to the letters written by 
New York state officials, to be found in the Congressional Record of 
July 8, 1909, and read in a speech by Hon. Lee S. Overman, Senator 
from North Carolina, it costs New York State in the neighborhood of 
from fifteen to twenty millions of dollars a year to maintain the for¬ 
eign-born, or, rather, the alien, inmates in New York state institu¬ 
tions—that is, prisons, asylums, almshouses, etc. According to Sena¬ 
tor Overman, about one-fourth of the taxes raised in New York are 
raised for that purpose, i. e., for the support of foreign-born deficients, 
dependents, and delinquents. 

Mr. Goldfogle. One-fourth of the taxes of New York, do you 
mean ? 

Mr. Patten. That is as I understand his speech. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You are drawing your conclusions from some 
statements made by the Senator, are you ? 

Mr. Patten. He was a Democratic Senator- 

Mr. Goldfogle. I do not care about that, whether he was a Demo¬ 
cratic Senator or whether he was a Republican Senator; what differ¬ 
ence does that make? I do not think the witness should have under¬ 
taken to mention the politics of anybody. This is a subject which 
concerns all the people, whether Democrats, Republicans, or members 
of any other political faith; this is a nonpolitical matter. 

Mr. Patten. My only point with regard to that was to show that 
this was nonpartisan; the statements are made by Republican state 
officials and used by a Democratic Senator. 

Mr. Sabath. Can you say now that the information you read in 
that speech is really justified by any facts that have been produced 
by anyone anywhere in the State of New York? 

Mr. Hayes. Why, Mr. Patten stated that the information came 
from New York State officials. 

Mr. Patten. It is used in the speech and is information that came 
from state officers of New York. I meant no offense by referring to 
Senator Overman as a Democrat, any more than to bring out the 
point that it was a nonpartisan presentation of the case. It must 
have been, because he is of a different political faith than the state 
officials. That was all I meant to emphasize, and I beg your pardon 
if what I said was taken in any other sense. I meant no offense Rt 
all; I did not mean to bring any politics into the matter. With 
regard to changes at Ellis Island, I beg to call the committee’s atten¬ 
tion to the next to the last paragraph of Commissioner Williams’s 
report, which shows another of the changes he has brought about 
since he returned to the post. He says: 

It is very annoying to have to report that some of the immigrant aid societies rep¬ 
resented at Ellis Island are grossly mismanaged. When I was commissioner before, I 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


43 


was compelled to take drastic action in respect of several, and I shall do so again in 
all instances where investigation may show this to be proper. A few of these socie¬ 
ties are mere commercial institutions in which the immigrant is not only exploited, 
but compelled to remain in filthy surroundings and foul atmosphere. Societies of 
this class will shortly be either reformed or removed altogether from the island, and 
none should welcome this action more than the good ones, of which there are several 
here, working really in the interest of the immigrants and incidentally aiding the 
Government. 

Mr. Sabath. That has been done; he has removed many of these 
societies ? 

Mr. Patten. I would like to say that when he left as commis¬ 
sioner, three years ago, there were something like 18 of such societies, 
represented by about 50 agents, and that when he returned, as I 
recall, there were 94 or 96 agents. 

Mr. Burnett. How many now? 

Mr. Patten. He has reduced the number, and is weeding out those 
that are there for strictly commercial or immoral purposes and leav¬ 
ing the legitimate ones, of which there are many. I am not cocksure 
as to the numbers. All these facts seem to show that there should 
be larger appropriations of money for the immigrant service at Ellis 
Island, not only in the way of providing additional buildings and 
facilities, but in the way of employing more and more efficient inspect¬ 
ors and increasing the pay of the men engaged in doing this difficult 
and important work. 

Mr. Burnett. You think that in order to meet those additional 
expenses there ought to be an increase of the head tax, in order to 
let the alien at least help to pay it? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir. As I have said, I do not regard the alien 
as really bearing the incidence of the present tax, and- 

Mr. Burnett. Well, somebody pays it. 

Mr. Kustermann. We are arriving at it. If I am in business, I 
find out the expense of running that business, and the steamship 
companies are finding out what the expenses are. 

Mr. Hayes. It is clear profit to them; almost clear profit. 

Mr. Kustermann. This head tax? 

Mr. Hayes. No; the immigrant business. They do not furnish 
them with any food to speak of, and what they do get is the cheapest 
kind of fare. 

Mr. Patten. It was testified by experts before the Industrial Com¬ 
mission that the total cost of bringing an immigrant here in the 
steerage was not over $7; that the food alone cost, for the entire trip, 
about $1.70; that was the testimony of an ex-commissioner, I think. 

Mr. Burnett. That was what time? 

Mr. Patten. The Report on Immigration, Volume XV, was issued 
in 1901, and the testimony was taken a year or two before. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Wffiat is the average charge to the immigrant? 

Mr. Patten. Now, about $37.50; I think about that. 

Mr. Goldfogle. So that the profit would be about $30? 

Mr. Patten. According to those figures. It is, of course, a very 
difficult matter to ascertain the cost of producing a service like bring¬ 
ing a person here in the steerage. It does not cost a railroad company, 
for instance, very much to run an extra train, practical^ nothing to 
carry an extra additional passenger on that train; neither does it cost 
a steamship company very much to carry an extra passenger, and 



44 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


when it is all confused by the carriage of freight, mails, and other 
things of that kind, it is pretty difficult, I think, for these transpor¬ 
tation companies to figure what the cost is of the specific service of 
bringing an immigrant to this country in the steerage. There seems 
to be a joint cost of producing the service, but no specific cost that 
can be arrived at. 

Mr. Kustermann. Not as to that one, but they can take the 
average. They do not always have full cargoes, do they ? 

Mr. Patten. No, sir; I believe not. 

Mr. Kustermann. And for that reason they have got to take the 
average; that is the only way they can arrive at it. I can assure 
you they must take into consideration the interest on their invest¬ 
ment, how much it costs to run and how much to keep them, and so 
on. There is no question about that. 

Mr. Patten. It is true in the history of steerage-passenger rates 
that for a number of years the steerage rate was below $20; then 
they combined and formed this pool, as the result of which there are, 
I understand, three conferences in Europe and England which fix 
the rates for all the lines except, maybe, a few little ones that do not 
amount to a drop in the bucket. 

Mr. Burnett. Did they make a large increase at once? 

Mr. Patten. They put it up gradually. They put it from below 
$20 to an average of about $37.50 long before 1899. Every once in a 
while, if you watch the papers, you will see that this conference has 
met and made some change in steerage-passenger or other rates. 
They recently met and increased steerage rates slightly, according to 
the newspapers—within the last three weeks, I think. I know there 
might be instances where they could shift the incidence of the tax, 
but they do not seem to have been able to do so in 1903 or in 1907, 
when the tax was doubled each time and there was no change in 
rates upward either time, and there was a slight change downward 
in 1907, following right on the heels of the increase in the tax from 
$2 to $4. I am inclined to think that the steamship companies fix 
the steerage rates and other rates, as long as there is no strong com¬ 
petition, on the principle of monopoly price, charging the traffic all it 
will bear, fixing the rate where it will yield the greatest possible 
aggregate profit. Consequently, to my mind, a tax up to $10, as 
advocated before the Industrial Commission in 1900, would not be 
shifted to any extent upon the steerage by increased rates. It seems 
to me it would be borne entirely or almost so by the foreign steam¬ 
ship companies and would come out of their profits. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Don’t you think that such a head tax placed upon 
the steamship companies would increase the cost of transportation 
to the alien? 

Mr. Patten. I do not believe so. They have increased it about a 
dollar recently, I understand. They might, but I doubt it very much. 
They did not do so July 1, 1907, when the tax was increased from 
$2 to $4. 

Mr. Kustermann. Last year neither the North German-Lloyd 
nor the Hamburg-American Line paid 1 per cent dividend. I know 
they did not. They could not. Their sfocks went down 20 per cent— 
that is, 20 points. It shows that at that rate they were not making 
any money. Now, then, if you increase their expenses their profits 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


45 


will be still less; so the thing is to get right down and see how much 
they are making. If they are making an outrageous profit on their 
immigration service, then they can well afford to pay this. 

Mr. Patten. It is certainly true that the steamship companies 
every year build a larger number of boats. Bigger boats and faster 
boats are put on the service every little while to engage in the 
immigrant-carrying business, and that is what seems to me so 
strange, that they would go on investing so much money in a busi¬ 
ness if it did not pay. 

Mr. Kustermann. Well, the boats wear out. And it is not the 
passenger trade, it is their freight trade, that helps them out; and 
last year there was so little of that that they actually could not pay 
any dividends at all, not one cent, while the year before they were 
able and did pay 6 per cent, and the Lloyd Company even paid 
8 per cent. That was the biggest year they ever had. 

Mr. Hayes. The immigrant business helps them out some. 

Mr. Sabath. The exports and imports fell off in 1907 and 1908, and 
that is the reason their dividends were cut down and the reason why 
their business was much smaller than it was in 1906 and 1905. 

Mr. Patten. I might say, with respect to steerage rates and condi¬ 
tions, that so far as I am informed this is the only country in the 
world with any considerably large net foreign immigration. Figures 
were published in the Congressional Record of April 26 last, in a 
speech made by Senator Overman, which showed that fact, and that 
at $37.50 per passenger the steamships take in from fifty to one hun¬ 
dred millions of dollars annually from the steerage business alone. 
Partial statistics are given for the United States, Canada, Australia, 
Peru, Brazil, and the Argentine Republic, and so forth; those statis¬ 
tics, according to this table, are taken from the consular reports and 
monthly bulletins of the South American Republics, etc. They seem 
to show that the United States is the only country where there is any 
considerable net foreign immigration; that is, any considerable excess 
of alien immigration over alien emigration. 

Mr. Kustermann. Did you say South America? 

Mr. Patten. It gives the figures for important South American 
countries. I mean there is an efflux from those countries about equal 
to influx. 

Mr. Burnett. Of natives you mean? 

Mr. Patten. No; of aliens. 

Mr. Kustermann. It is claimed that immigration has built up this 
country; so we are glad to have them. 

Mr. Burnett. That is not so now. 

Mr. Hayes. It fills up the slums. 

Mr. Goldfogle. A great many of those to whom objection has been 
made $re doing the hard, manual work of tunneling, digging in the 
mines, and so forth. 

Mr. Hayes. Some of them are, but not many. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Doing some of the work that Americans would not 
do, some of the work that some of the “ better classes,” as they have 
been called, I think, by the gentleman from California, would not do. 

Mr. Patten. Commissioner Williams has something to say about 
the character of present immigration, and if the committee would care 
to hear it I will be glad to read this paragraph. 


46 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Hayes. I should be glad to have it. 

Mr. Patten. It is an expression of his opinion. He handles about 
80 per cent of the present influx. I believe it is right in line with 
expressions to be found in previous reports. Unquestionably Com¬ 
missioner Williams is the only man in recent years at Ellis Island 
who seems to have been well equipped—that is, in my humble opin¬ 
ion—for that important task; well equipped in every way; abso¬ 
lutely independent financially, with splendid mental training, a man 
of great innate ability. I have understood he ranks up well with 
his fellow-men in the legal profession at New York City. He says: 

I have already adverted to the easy-going character of our exclusion laws and stated 
that even their strict enforcement would keep out only the very bad elements of 
foreign countries. Between these elements and those that are a real benefit to the 
country (as so many of our immigrants are) there lies a class who may be quite able 
to earn a living here, but who in doing so tend to pull down our standards of living. 
I am not now concerned with the question whether or not laws can be framed which 
will correctly describe this undesirable class. 

I wish merely to emphasize, what must be known to every thinking person, that 
it is coming here in considerable numbers and that we are making no effort to exclude 
it. Few people are bold enough to claim that we are in urgent need of any more 
immigrants who will crowd into the congested districts of our large cities. And 
yet this is where a large percentage of our immigrants now go and stay. At the time 
when portions of the West are crying for out-of-door labor the congestion in New 
York City may be increasing at the rate of many thousands per month. Another 
way of putting this is to say that much of our present-day immigration is not respons¬ 
ive to the legitimate demands for additional labor in the United States. I think 
this fact should be made known throughout those sections of our country where many 
erroneously think that further restrictions of the right kind would increase the diffi¬ 
culties incident to obtaining labor for which there is a real demand. Quite the con¬ 
trary is the case, for poor immigration tends to deter good immigrants from coming. 

That is, the steamship companies will fill their steerage, if not with 
one class with another class, and as long as uninterfered with will 
bring the class which is the most profitable. They seek the most 
profitable traffic. 

Mr. Burnett. From what report are you reading? 

Mr. Patten. The last annual report of Commissioner Williams, 
commissioner of immigration at Ellis Island, New York Harbor. 
It is dated August 8, 1909. It has not been published as yet, I 
believe. 

Mr. Kustermann. Our State lately appointed an immigration 
commissioner to get the so-called “ undesirables /’ many of them, to 
our State. We need labor. 

Mr. Hayes. But they do not go. 

Mr. Sabath (to Mr. Hayes). Do you get many of them from 
Europe ? 

Mr. Hayes. We get all that we need; but we would be very glad 
to exchange some of the Japanese for some of those from other 
countries. 

Mr. Sabath. I agree with you on that question, but how many 
European immigrants do you receive in the State of California, or how 
many have you received during the last year? 

Mr. Hayes. Well, we do not receive scarcely any directly through 
the ports of San Francisco or Seattle, but they come overland from 
New York. The Italian to whom I referred was one who came from 
New York. We get quite a number from the north of Italy who are 
excellent immigrants. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


47 


Mr. Patten. About a year ago they brought East a carload of 
insane aliens from California for deportation. I might say, in connec¬ 
tion with the statement made by Mr. Kiistermann, that the experience 
of the State of South Carolina is interesting in that connection. It 
established a bureau of immigration four or five years ago. Some of 
the money for the work of that bureau was collected from the mill 
men. The State had not appropriated enough, apparently. Two 
cargoes of immigrants were brought to South Carolina on the Witte- 
\cirid —the first one in November, 1906, and one the following Febru¬ 
ary—and distributed throughout the State by the state commissioner. 
I understand that the Bureau of Labor has found that there are not 
more than 10 per cent of those immigrants in South Carolina to-day. 
On the 4th of last March South Carolina adopted a law abolishing the 
bureau of immigration and affirmatively forbidding an official of the 
State “to attempt, directly or indirectly, to bring foreign immi¬ 
grants into the State.’’ 

Mr. Sabath. Do you know why they did not remain there? 

Mr. Burnett. They wanted to go to New York. 

Mr. Patten. That is another question. 

Mr. Sabath. Do you also know the cause they assigned for leaving? 

Mr. Patten. There are a great many reasons. 

Mr. Sabath. Well, the main reason, the main cause. Let us have 
it all. You know what I mean? 

Mr. Patten. In the first place, as a rule that class of immigrants, 
particularly those of the Mediterranean countries, have a social in¬ 
stinct, a social aversion to living in the country; while they may be 
called farmers and say they are farmers at home, they do not live on 
the land they cultivate; they live a more or less congested life in little 
communities, villages, and cities. They go out in the morning to the 
land they cultivate and come back to the city life in the evening. 
Their preference for congested city life is called a social instinct by 
Miss Jane Addams, and is described as being the result of centuries. 
They like the city, its glare, its excitement, etc. The bulk of the pres¬ 
ent immigrants do not seem to have a fondness for the West and the 
rural districts. According to statistics of destination, nine-tenths of 
our immigrants go to the States north of the Potomac River and east 
of tfuT Mississippi—that is, to the large labor and industrial centers 
of the country. . 

Mr. Sabath. All farmers in European countries manage to build 
their buildings and homes together, in a so-called village, instead of 
the way it is done here, where a farmer has his home on his piece of 
land, on his farm. In Europe they have their buildings in the center, 
in the so-called village, and have the fields a short distance away from 
their homes, so that they can easily meet one another, and live that 
way much better than when they are living alone in these districts. 

Mr. Elvins. Have you given any study to the cause of the falling 
off of immigration from northern Europe and Scandinavia and the 
increase in that from southern Europe—the Mediterranean countries ? 

Mr. Patten. I think that Mr. Williams answers that where he 
says “poor immigration tends to deter good immigration from 
coming,” etc. 

Mr. Elvins. In what way? 


48 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Patten. Now, thirty years ago practically all of our foreign 
immigration came from northwestern Europe; to-day practically 
the hulk of it, three-fourths of it, or 80 per cent of it, comes from 
southeastern Europe and western Asia. 

Mr. Elvins. Why is that? 

Mr. Patten. In the first place, as I said a while ago, these large 
foreign steamship companies have all their departments, freight, 
traffic, passenger, and all that, under heads—there is a divided 
responsibility—a divided responsibility has helped increase the 
difficulties of getting at the men “higher up,” it is said, in the case 
of the sugar-refining company in connection with the customs frauds 
at New York—each department tries to increase its own profits, 
for various personal reasons. The men in that department, the 
officials and all others, have found that the southeastern European 
traffic is much more profitable than is the northwestern European 
traffic. Immigrants from the Mediterranean countries, for instance, 
will put up with less conveniences, can be packed in closer quarters, 
and hence are a more profitable traffic. The steerage report of 
the Immigration Commission, I believe, makes clear that steerage 
conditions on immigrant-carrying vessels from northwest Europe 
are superior. 

Mr. Sabath. With the exception of Italy. 

Mr. Patten. That is due to the fact that that traffic—the Mediterra¬ 
nean—will put up with less conveniences. Now, I think that illus¬ 
trates the point I wanted to make, namely, that the source of our 
immigration has not been shifted from England and northwestern 
Europe owing to a diminished population, for, with the exception of 
Ireland, all those countries have larger populations, and England 
certainly to-day has more unemployed than ever before. Now, my 
point is this: They find so much more profit in connection with those 
immigrants—they can gather so many more with so much less expense 
and pack them in so much closer—that they have shifted the source 
from northwestern to southeastern Europe. Let them alone and they 
will go to India; they will go on tapping the most profitable traffic. 

Mr. Kustermann. Then you mean that the steamship companies 
regulate this thing? • # 

Mr v Patten. Yes, sir; I really believe so. I think we are leaving to 
their profit-making choice the selection of our immigrants entirely to 
too large a degree. 

Mr. Kustermann. The reason why there are so few immigrants 
from Germany at the present time is because times are good there; 
they are earning much more than in any other place. 

Mr. Patten. Beg pardon, but Herr von Pillis disagrees with you 
in regard to that; he as well as some other German officials who lay 
most weight along the line of Commissioner Williams’s argument. 

According to page 34 of House Document No. 384, Fifty-ninth Con¬ 
gress, Herr von Pillis, of the German Government, said in 1903: 

We view with great satisfaction the fact that few Germans emigrate to the United 
States, which is not due so much to the excellent conditions existing here as to the 
fact that your present immigrant labor has been mercilessly cheapened in America. 

Mr. Burnett was there and investigated conditions, I think, in 
northern Europe. 

Mr. Burnett. I talked with a number of Germans in regard to that 
very question, and they stated, as Mr. Kustermann has that one rea- 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


49 


son was that they were doing better there, and another reason was that 
they knew the people we were getting in this country from Italy and 
Sicily, as well as Greeks and Syrians, and that class of people, and 
that they did not want to come in contact with them any more than 
was necessary, and that was one of the main reasons for the falling 
off of immigration to this country from northwestern Europe. 

Mr. Sabath. Well, I will tell you gentlemen what my opinion is. 
I believe we have drained Germany, we have drained Scandinavia, 
Ireland, and the other countries, of the best class of men, namely, 
the young men from 18 to 20. 

Mr. Hayes. We have drained off all of their paupers, too. 

Mr. Sabath. A pauper can not come. If a man must pay $60 or 
$80, that means he must have 400 or 500 marks, and a man who has 
400 or 500 marks with which to pay his passage is not a pauper. 

Mr. Hayes. The passage of a great many has been paid by the 
municipalities in those countries. 

Mr. Sabath. You may have better information than I have, but 
I know that is not so in Germany, it is not so in Austria, and I know 
it is not so in Poland. 

Mr. Hayes. Their passage has been paid by the municipalities or 
our officials have reported falsely. 

(Mr. Hayes moved that the reports from which Mr. Patten read 
should be made a part of the hearings and printed in full, and the 
question being taken, the motion was agreed to.) 

(Upon motion of Mr. Hayes it was agreed that further hearings in 
this matter be adjourned until Tuesday, February 8, 1910, at 10.30 
o’clock a. m.) 


ANNUAL REPORT. 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Immigration Service, 

New York, N. Y., August 16, 1909. 

Commissioner-General of Immigration, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: I became commissioner May 28, so that I have held office only during one 
month and three days of the period to which this report is intended to relate. The 
tide of immigration, which in 1908 fell to a low point, appears again to be rising rapidly, 
and I proceeded at once to take steps to reduce so far as possible the number of aliens 
ineligible under our laws who shall during the next year attempt to pass through 
Ellis Island. These laws, except as they relate to contract laborers, exclude only 
such manifestly undesirable persons as idiots, insane persons, paupers, persons likely 
to become public charges, persons with loathsome or dangerous contagious diseases, 
convicted criminals, prostitutes, etc. A mere reading of this list shows that they 
could not be less exacting without exposing the country to grave danger. Even their 
strict execution makes it possible to keep out only what may be termed “scum, ” or the 
very worst elements that seek to come here. That no one, including particularly 
intending immigrants, should have any misapprehension as to the policy to be followed 
at Ellis Island, a notice, of which the following is a copy, was issued on June 4: 

“It is necessary that the standard of inspection at Ellis Island be raised. Notice 
hereof is given publicity in order that intending immigrants may be advised before 
embarkation that our immigration law will be strictly enforced; so that those who 
are unable to measure up to the requirements of the law may not waste their time 
or money in coming here only to encounter the hardships of deportation.” 

But actually to raise the standard of inspection at a great immigration office requires 
something more than a general notice. The whole official force must be carefully 
and uniformly trained in the exercise of proper care. It is necessary to ascertain who 


49090—10-4 




50 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


does and who does not know and understand the statutes, and amongst other things 
to explain the facts and elements to be considered in determining whether or not an 
immigrant is a “pauper r or a “person likely to become a public charge.” All of this 
requires time and patience, and one month is so short a period that I shall defer report 
of results until later. 

On June 28 another important notice was issued and at once gave rise to so much 
misrepresentation that I cite it: 

“Certain steamship companies are bringing to this port many immigrants whose 
funds are manifestly inadequate for their proper support until such time as they are 
likely to obtain profitable employment. Such action is improper and must cease. 
In the absence of a statutory provision, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to 
the amount of money an immigrant must bring with him, but in most cases it will 
be unsafe for immigrants to arrive with less than twenty-five dollars ($25) besides 
railroad ticket to destination, while in many instances they should have more. They 
must in addition, of course, satisfy the authorities that they will not become charges 
either on public or private charity.” 

This notice is not, as so many have claimed it to be, a rule under which inspectors 
must exclude immigrants with less than $25, and thus an attempt to create a property 
test not found in the statutes. It is merely a humane notice to intending immigrants 
that upon landing they will require at least some small amount of money with which to 
meet their wants while looking about for employment. That it was time for the Gov¬ 
ernment to serve this warning, which others should have given long ago, is shown by a 
mere inspection of some of the records of incoming vessels. For instance, out of 251 
passengers on S. S. Volturno July 4,1909,13 had $1,11 had $2,7 had $3, 8 had $4, and 20 
had $5. One hundred and eighty-nine had $10 or less, and yet the majority of these in¬ 
digent people were going to congested portions of our large cities where the competition 
among newly arrived immigrants for a living is very great. One hundred and thirty- 
five were bound for New York City. Undoubtedly the principal test to which immi- 

S ants should be subjected is as to their ability to become self-supporting, but the 
overnment may properly insist that while looking for employment they shall not 
run the risk of becoming objects of charity. And this leads me to remark that the 
practice under which penniless immigrants are allowed to qualify after arrival by 
receiving gifts of money from persons under no moral or legal obligation to support 
them is a bad one and should gradually be terminated. With this in view I added to 
the notice of June 28 above referred to this clause: 

“Only in instances deemed by the Government to be of exceptional merit will 
gifts to destitute immigrants after arrival be considered in determining whether or 
not they are qualified to land; for, except where such gifts are to those legally enti¬ 
tled to support (as to wives, minor children, etc.), the recipients stand here as objects 
of private charity, and our statutes do not contemplate that such aliens shall enter 
the country.” 

One of many objections to such gifts is4hat they are often mere subterfuges to defeat 
the law. Instances are constantly coming to our attention where money so given is 
taken from the immigrant in indecent haste, at times even before he leaves the barge 
office. Incidentally I note that Canada (which many will be surprised to learn is 
now stricter than the United States as regards the admission of immigrants) declines 
to receive immigrants who are unable upon arrival to show $25 which they have 
brought with them. They are not allowed to qualify through gifts of money received 
after arrival. 

One reason why so many destitute immigrants come here is that there are certain 
wicked agencies abroad (and even in this country) whose sole purpose is to exploit 
immigrants, give them false advice, and circumvent our statutes. Of these agencies 
I shall have more to say later, and now only point out that they are not receiving the 
attention they deserve. 

I have already adverted to the easy-going character of our exclusion laws and stated 
that even their strict enforcement keeps out only the very bad elements of foreign 
countries. Between these elements and those that are a real benefit to the country 
(as so many of our immigrants are) there lies a class who may be quite able to earn a 
living here, but who in doing so tend to pull down our standards of living. I am not 
now concerned with the question whether or not laws can be framed which will cor¬ 
rectly describe this undesirable class. I wish merely to emphasize, what must be 
known to every thinking person, that it is coming here in considerable numbers and 
that we are making no effort to exclude it. Few people are bold enough to claim that 
we are in urgent need of any more immigrants who will crowd into the congested dis¬ 
tricts of our large cities. And yet this is where a large percentage of our immigrants 
now go and stay. At a time when portions of the West are crying for out-of-door labor 
the congestion in New York City may be increasing at the rate of many thousands per 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


51 


month. Another way of putting this is to say that much of our present day immigra¬ 
tion is not responsive to the legitimate demands for additional labor in the United 
States. I think this fact should be made known throughout those sections of our 
country where many erroneously think that further restrictions of the right kind 
would increase the difficulties incident to obtaining labor for which there is a real 
demand. Quite the contrary is the case, for poor immigration tends to deter good 
immigrants from coming. 

If the immigration law is to be executed at Ellis Island with the thoroughness which 
its importance requires, both more men and more space must be provided. It fre¬ 
quently happens that 5,000 aliens arrive in one day. With the inspectors’ force at 
my disposal not over two minutes can be devoted to each of them at the first inspection, 
at which over 70 per cent are usually admitted. Those held for special inquiry, of 
course, receive further investigation, of which I am not speaking now. The inade¬ 
quacy of the period of two minutes above mentioned is emphasized further when we 
remember that there are now 38 questions to be asked and notations made in response 
thereto on the manifest. And to accomplish even this inadequate inspection the 
inspectors must work nine hours almost continuously. The situation becomes 
infinitely worse when 5,000 arrive on each of two or three succeeding days. I see that 
in May, 1907, 150,000 arrived, or an average of 5,000 a day for each of 31 successive 
days. This may happen again, and I feel it my duty to state plainly that if it does, 
full or proper inspection will, in the absence of increased facilities, be out of the 
question, both for lack of time and lack of physical and mental endurance on the 
part of the officials. 

The question will be asked: Why should there be received at Ellis Island on any 
one day more immigrants than can be carefully inspected? My inclination, of course, 
is to take only such a number (say, 3,000) and so far as practicable I shall act accord¬ 
ingly. But if with an average of 5,000 a day for one month I were to decline to receive 
over 3,000 a day it might well be charged that it was the duty of the Government to 
make timely provision for the proper inspection of such number of immigrants as were 
likely to arrive, so that commerce need not be improperly impeded or immigrants 
unnecessarily kept aboard iron ships, oftentimes in hot weather. As the Immigration 
Service is seif-supporting (or, if not, can readily be made so) there seems special reason 
why adequate facilities should exist for the prompt and efficient transaction of all 
business. Even at the writing of this report, with immigration far from its highest 
figure, many of the officials are obliged to work overtime day after day. Not a few 
are on duty over ten hours. There is here a force of very willing workers, but that, I 
submit, is no reason why a large number of them should be called upon, sometimes for 
several days in succession, to render services involving unusually long hours. 

As regards additional space required, I call particular attention to the lack of quar¬ 
ters for the transaction of that very important branch of our work known as “special 
inquiry.” The room in which immigrants held for this purpose are detained is so 
inadequate as to be a reproach to the Government. Almost the same can be said of 
the room in which witnesses appearing before the boards are compelled to await their 
turn to testify. There are but three proper court rooms, whereas six boards have since 
June 1 frequently been in session. There should be treble the space that we now have 
for the various kinds of “special inquiry ’’ work, but I shall defer specific recommen¬ 
dations until later. 

Our hospital facilities, thanks to the recent construction of a contagious-disease 
hospital on the new island, will probably now be adequate, except that there is no 
proper *ward for holding for observation cases in which it is suspected that the alien 
may be affected mentally. Certain wooden barracks are now used for this purpose. 
They were never intended to stand permanently, and furthermore are dangerous by 
reason of their inflammability. Here, too, I shall defer specific recommendations 
until later, only pointing out now that something must be done before long. A fine 
new dormitory building recently built at a cost of about $450,000 will facilitate materi¬ 
ally the transaction of our business, though it is already taxed to its utmost. Unfor¬ 
tunately no provision has been made either for baths, forced ventilation, or freight- 
elevator service, all of which are important and must be added. 

It is very annoying to have to report that some of the immigrant aid societies repre¬ 
sented at Ellis Island are grossly mismanaged. When I was commissioner before, I was 
compelled to take drastic action in respect of several, and I shall do so again in all 
instances where investigation may show this to be proper. A few of these societies are 
mere commercial institutions, in which the immigrant is not only exploited but com¬ 
pelled to remain in filthy surroundings and foul atmosphere. Societies of this class 
will shortly be either reformed or removed altogether from the island, and none should 
welcome this action more than the good ones, of which there are several here working 
really in the interest of the immigrant and incidentally aiding the Government. 


52 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


The privilege of delivering immigrants’ baggage is being very badly executed, 
investigation showing that immigrants are being systematically overcharged by the 
drivers. This matter is receiving proper attention, as is also the question whether or 
not the contract in relation to the feeding of immigrants is being performed in strict 
accordance with the specification. 

Respectfully, Wm. Williams, Commissioner. 


fPart of report of J. B. Reynolds who reported for the President on certain conditions at Ellis Island 
L in 1906.] 

MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF THE INSANE AND MENTALLY DEFECT¬ 
IVE AT ELLIS ISLAND. 

As requested by you, I have given special attention to the treatment of the insane 
and mentally defective at Ellis Island. This branch of the Bureau of Immigration 
is at present a part of the Marine-Hospital Service, hence is under the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment and not under the Department of Commerce and Labor. This confusion and 
divided responsibility may in part account for the deplorable condition which I must 
report. 

I found that immigrants certified by the ship’s doctor as insane, under an order of 
the commissioner-general, are not landed, but are kept on board the steamer until 
its return trip. These unfortunates are locked in the ship’s cabins and receive no 
care except such as is given by ship stewards. 

All arriving immigrants receive a hasty examination. Those regarded as positively 
mentally defective are then examined by the alienists, of whom there are three at 
the Island. If detained for further observation they are next taken to a special 
detention room. This room, which receives on an average of 30 or 40 immigrants 
daily, is divided by partitions extending half way to the ceiling into a doctor’s exam¬ 
ination room, a men’s section and a women’s section. The section supposed to be 
reserved for women is in fact used by both sexes. A single male attendant is in charge 
of the detention room, but on more than one occasion I found him sitting outside of 
the room, the door into it being closed, and the men and women in the room without 
attendants. There is no matron in charge of the women’s section. I was told that 
one who had many other duties is supposed to occasionally visit the room, but on no 
occasion did I find one present. 

There is also no attendant for the common toilet, the only entrance to which is 
from the women’s sectioh. I was informed that the commissioner had promised 
last spring to provide a separate toilet for the women, but at the time of my visit in 
September nothing had been done. I consider the situation just described scandal¬ 
ous. Some detained immigrants, if not actually insane, are of highly nervous sensi¬ 
bility, while others are moral degenerates, and the danger of driving the former into 
actual insanity and of giving free rein to the vices of the latter does not need further 
argument. 

The sleeping arrangements for the mentally defective are scandalous. It has been 
the custom to crowd this class into large sleeping rooms with other immigrants without 
explanation to the night attendants of their condition and special needs. If disturb¬ 
ances, often the products of diseased minds, occur, the attendants naturally regard 
these disturbances as willful and handle them accordingly. This indiscriminate 
mixing of the sane and insane affords another illustration of the ignorance and indif¬ 
ference, not to use stronger terms, of the management. The three alienists are the 
only ones having to do with the mentally defective who are trained for the work. 
There are no trained nurses and no trained day or night attendants. The rough treat¬ 
ment of defective immigrants by attendants, often alleged, is quite possibly due to 
ignorance and lack of training. But this absence of attendants trained in the care of 
the insane makes the service of the bureau greatly inferior to that of the state hospitals 
for the insane. 

The alienists assigned to the care of the mentally defective work under many diffi¬ 
culties. Their undivided attention should be given to the mentally defective, but 
not infrequently they are called upon to do general medical work. I am informed 
that one alienist was recently ordered to leave his special work, where patients were 
demanding his attention, to make general inspection “on the line,” the reason being 
given that no other doctors were available. He protested, but obeyed orders. Sub¬ 
sequently other doctors appeared, but though they were assigned to duty he was kept 
“on the line.” He finally left the line and returned to his own work. He was at once 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


53 


suspended from duty for disobedience. If the facts are as stated to me he was prob¬ 
ably technically guilty of insubordination, and his chief was within his rights in sus¬ 
pending him, but the chief deserved even severer discipline for his failure to return 
the alienist to his post of special duty as soon as other doctors were available. 

The following statistics of those certified by the marine-hospital medical officers for 
the years 1900-1906, inclusive, indicate the good results of the employment of alien¬ 
ists for the detection of the mentally unbalanced. Alienists were first employed in 
1905. F * 



1900. 

1901. 

1902. 

1903. 

1904. 

1905. 

1906. 

Insanity. 

28 

17 

26 

21 

24 

59 

122 

Idiocy. 

1 

5 

3 

5 

13 

22 

54 

Other mental defects. 


25 

29 

25 

20 

47 

97 

Total. 


47 

58 

51 

57 

128 

273 


1906. 

Deported. 

Remaining 
end of year. 

113 

7 

51 

3 I 

76 

15 

240 

■ 25 


I am convinced, however, after cross-questioning the alienists that a large number 
of cases slip through because the force is so inadequate for both the detection and 
examination of defectives. In view of the fact stated to me that the State of New 
York alone is returning an average of nearly 20 insane persons a month, recently 
arrived immigrants, it can not be doubted that many insane or mentally defective 
are admitted. 

A building is now in process of construction at Ellis Island to accommodate about 
twenty-five insane persons. It contains, however, no general examining room and no 
accommodations for those temporarily detained for observation, nor have plans been 
drawn to secure such accommodations. 

I took pains to visit the State Insane Hospital at Poughkeepsie, the insane hospitals 
at Wards Island, and the city insane pavilion at Bellevue. The intelligence and 
efficiency exhibited in the state institutions were in striking contrast to the ineffi¬ 
ciency of the government service. Prompt and drastic action should be taken to 
relieve the Government from disgrace of the present situation, and to that end I offer 
the accompanying recommendations. 


Committee on Immigration, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday, February 1, 1910. 

The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m., Hon. Benjamin F. Howell 
(chairman) presiding, having under consideration House resolution 
29. Others present were Representatives Bennet, Sabath, Moore, of 
Texas, Hayes, Goldfogle, Kustermann, Burnett, and Elvins. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM SULZER, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

Mr. Sulzer. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I desire to call to your 
attention House resolution 29, introduced by me on January 7, 1910. 
The object of this resolution is to prevent the separation and de¬ 
portation, in so far as possible, of members of families of immigrants 




























54 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


coming to the United States. At the present time the immigration 
officers frequently separate families, allowing some members to land 
and ordering the deportation of other members. Sometimes they 
send the husband back, letting the wife and children land; sometimes 
they send the wife back and let the husband and the children land; 
sometimes they send back some or all of the children and let the 
parents land. In many cases where this is done it causes much 
physical hardship and great mental suffering, frequently causing 
suicide; and often, when the husband is sent back to places like Russia, 
he is imprisoned and the families are forever disrupted. Often when 
children are sent back they lose their identity and never again hear of 
or see their father or their mother. Frequently when the wife is sent 
back she never sees her husband or her children again. The physical 
and mental distress caused by these family separations of immigrants 
is beyond the imagination. Nobody can picture the sorrows of 
families separated at the immigration stations. It is a crying evil 
and should be stopped. 

There have been numerous suicides caused by these family separa¬ 
tions, and often when the parents go back, as soon as they land on the 
other side they are clapped in prison and are never heard of again. 

The purpose of this resolution must appeal to every humane person 
who has studied the subject-matter. There is great demand on the 
part of the people who know about it to have this legislation en¬ 
acted, and I do not see how there can be any objection to it. In my 
opinion our laws should be so made that families should not be sepa¬ 
rated. If a family comes here and the husband is not entitled to land 
his wife and children should go back with him. There should be no 
deportation for trivial reasons. Everything should be done to keep the 
family together. If the husband is entitled to land, and there is some 
question about whether his wife, or one of his children, is entitled to 
land, if he is allowed to land, the wife, or the wife and children, should 
land too. But I say no family should be separated at our gates except 
for the gravest reasons of public policy. 

Outside of the humanitarian aspects of the question, there is an 
economic phase to it that should appeal to the Members of Congress 
and to the citizens of the country generally. If the wife is allowed 
to land and the husband is deported, if they are poor people, the wife 
is apt to become a burden upon friends or the community. If the 
husband is allowed to land and the wife is sent back, the chances are 
that she will not get over here again, and that family is broken up, 
causing endless sorrow and trouble, and that is what I am trying to 
prevent, and that is what the people who are behind this bill want 
to prevent. They want to keep the families intact. There has 
been too much of these separations in the past. Let us stop it. 

The steamship companies that bring over the immigrants seldom 
have any objection to taking one back, but if we had a law like this 
bill of mine on the statute books the steamship companies would be 
more careful and more particular as to the immigrant families that 
come over, because they would not want to take back the whole 
family. Hence it would be in the interest of good immigration 
administration if we passed this bill, and no family would be sepa¬ 
rated, and no family could be deported except some member of it 
was suffering from a loathsome or contagious disease. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


55 


Mr. Kustermann. Do you not except such cases in here? 

Mr. Sulzer. Yes; I except such cases, and I think they ought to 
be excepted. 

Mr. Kustermann. This provides for an exception of anyone suf¬ 
fering from a loathsome or contagious disease. In that case, of course, 
the family would be divided. 

Mr. Sulzer. In that case the family should be sent back—but 
only in such a case. 

Mr. Kustermann. Why not have them all return, then? 

Mr. Sulzer. That is what the bill provides. That the family shall 
not be separated except in cases where a member is suffering from a 
loathsome or contagious disease, and then they all go back. I want 
the law construed liberally in the interest of the family—to keep it 
together. 

Mr. Hayes. Suppose, for example, this case: A man comes here 
with his family, and his wife or one of his children is insane. You 
would not think it was a part of wisdom for the United States to 
admit the insane person, would you ? 

Mr. Sulzer. No. I am willing to include cases of insanity—or, 
for that matter, criminality. 

Mr. Hayes. Or suppose the case that came to my notice the last 
time I was on Ellis Island. A German family came to this country 
by the name of Stein, and the oldest boy had a defective heart. His 
heart beat 120 beats in a minute, twice a second. It was reasonably 
certain that he would become a public charge. What would you do 
in such a case as that ? 

Mr. Sulzer. In such a case I would admit the family. 

Mr. Kustermann. Doubtless the parents were able to provide for 
him. 

Mr. Hayes. They were not. 

Mr. Sulzer. I would admit all the family. 

Mr. Kustermann. They were not then, but they intended to pro¬ 
vide for him. 

Mr. Hayes. Yes; I know they did. 

Mr. Kustermann. That was rather a hardship. 

Mr. Hayes. It was very hard. I had my daughter and my niece 
there, and some other young people, and they shed tears when they 
found out what the situation was. It was very hard, but still, what 
are you going to do in such a case ? 

Mr. Sulzer. In a case like that, I should say, if the parents were 
admitted, the child should be admitted, and the parents would look 
after the child. I doubt if the child would ever become a public 
charge. 

Mr. Kustermann. I did not know that they would be kept out if 
they were affected with heart disease. 

Mr. Hayes. Yes. 

Mr. Moore. How would he become a public charge? Would not 
that heart trouble cause certain death? 

Mr. Hayes. It would cause certain death, or his nerves would all 
be broken up. He would not be able to do anything. 

Mr. Kustermann. He would probably die before long; he could 
not live long. So I think it is wrong to not let him come in. 

Mr. Hayes. I had my sympathies very much wrought up, and I 
said to Mr. Watchorn, “For Heaven's sake, can't you get this boy a 


56 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


bond so that he can come in?” I told him I would go his bond 
myself if there wasn’t anyone else to. But he said he could not do it. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HENEY M. GOLDFOGLE, A EEPEESENTA- 
TIYE FEOM THE STATE OF NEW YOEK. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Mr. Chairman, I have personally known of many 
cases such as have been referred to by my colleague from New York, 
Mr. Sulzer. I have seen cases at Ellis Island that have brought 
misery to many families. I have seen children taken from their 
parents and deported; fathers taken from children and deported; 
mothers taken from children, or from some of them, and deported. 
In some cases there was not that indulgence extended by the immi¬ 
gration authorities that would have been consistent both with 
justice and mercy. I interested myself in a great many such immi¬ 
gration cases. I was, of course, applied to by hundreds interested 
as relatives or friends in immigrants who came to the port of New 
York, for I represent a district largely inhabited by foreign-born 
people, and it was natural that a great many of my constituents, and 
many others residing in the city of New York, should apply to me 
from time to time in behalf of immigrants concerning whose admis¬ 
sion question was made. Frequently the department at Washington 
made directions that operated harshly on the immigrant families. 
I can go so far as to say that many of these directions worked not 
alone misery, but cruelty. 

There ought to be some legislation whereby the families might 
not be easily disrupted. I fully recognize the necessity of keeping 
out the insane, the criminal, and those suffering from loathsome, 
infectious, and contagious diseases, but there are a thousand and 
one cases which we can readily conceive of that ought not to give 
rise to deportation of some of the family while others of them are 
left here. That works a sad and painful condition. Families should 
be kept together, if it is at all possible, with due regard to the interests 
of the country. I am of opinion that this committee should frame 
such a bill as may tend as much as possible to prevent the hardship, 
the misery, the cruelty, and the injustice to which both my colleagues 
from New York and I have this morning referred. 

Mr. Hayes. I want to ask Mr. Sulzer if he does not think it would 
be safer—in fact, I see no other way—where the laws of the United 
States exclude an alien, to deport the whole family. Otherwise all 
these exceptions would be absolutely null and void, or nearly so, in 
the case of the insane, as I suggested, or in the case of one who is 
sure to become a public charge. 

Mr. Goldfogle. When you speak of one likely to become a pub¬ 
lic charge I want to say that is a very elastic term, and it has given 
rise to a variety of decisions here in Washington, some not consistent 
with others. 

Mr. Hayes. Even so, you would not be in favor of abolishing that 
provision would you ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. I am in favor of so framing legislation that those 
who really are in actual danger of becoming charges would be excluded. 
Of course I desire to keep the country free of pauper classes, but I 
would not have legislation so framed that the department would still 
be enabled to make rulings that lead to the hardship and the misery, 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 57 

such as have frequently been made in the past, and to which we have 
called this committee's attention. 

Mr. Hayes. I do not think the Government is to blame for that. 
It seems to me that the parties who have induced these immigrants 
to come here are primarily responsible—the steamship companies or 
their agents. 

Mr. Bennet. Let me cite a case to our colleague from California. 
There was a man came over four or five years ago who went to Albany. 
He prospered in business, and after he had been here two or three 
years—I am not certain as to the exact time—he sent over for 
his wife and 4 children. He was the inducing cause. They came. 
He met them at Ellis Island. His wife had a slight case of trichina, 
but the children were all admissible. The board, and subsequently 
the department, made an order admitting those 4 children and 
deporting the wife. She very frankly said to the commissioner at 
Ellis Island, Commissioner Watchorn, “You can put me on the ship 
and you can start me back, but I will never go. If I have to be sepa¬ 
rated from my husband and 4 children I will never land on the other 
side," and he telegraphed to Washington that sooner than execute 
that order he would resign his office as commissioner. They modi¬ 
fied the order and gave him the right to put the wife in the hospital 
at the expense of her husband, and in time she was cured and the 
family was reunited. Do you not think he was right? 

Mr. Hayes. Certainly he was. 

Mr. Kustermann. Yes; he was. 

Mr. Bennet. Ought there not be some way, some provision, so 
that at least there could be discretion, in the case of the separation 
of a family, to prevent it? You told me a case one time, Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. Hayes. I told it this morning. It was an awfully touching 
case. 

Mr. Bennet. Do you not think that was almost a brutal hardship? 

Mr. Hayes. It was. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I want to say to my colleague from New York 
that there is a discretion now given by existing law, but I have 
noted in many communications I have seen, some addressed to me 
and some to others, that the discretion was not wisely exercised. 

Mr. Bennet. Ordinarily there is not very much discretion. 

Mr. Hayes. You can not allow very much. 

Mr. Bennet. Sometimes it is not advisable. I will give you a 
case, where a former official was in charge. This was a case of Ital¬ 
ians, as I recall it. The father and three children in this country 
were earning aggregate salaries of $80 or $90 a week. The mother 
and either three or four children came over from Italy on money sup¬ 
plied by the father and the children here from their earnings. The 
mother was all right and all of the children were admissible, except 
one. On the neck of a 12 or 13 year old child they found a trace of 
something which indicated that she might have had tuberculous 
experience in the past or might some time in the future be afflicted 
with tubercular trouble, although the doctor said it might never 
happen, or might not happen in twenty years. On that one scar on 
the neck of a 13-year-old girl the department here in Washington 
ordered not only herself deported, but the mother and the other 
children. 

Mr. Hayes. That was silly. 


58 


HEARING ON IMMIGEATION BILLS. 


Mr. Bennet. I am very glad to say that I got the order reversed 
and the family taken off the ship; and the gentleman’s successor, 
without any motion on my part at all, opened up the whole case, 
admitted ail the children except the one with the scar, and the last 
I heard they were trying to get her admitted, as very possibly they 
did. The trouble with too rigid laws is this, that some man in office, 
clothed with a little brief authority, enforces them along the letter, 
as that man did, and makes a reasonable law obnoxious. He was 
within the letter of the law. 

Mr. Hayes. But not within the spirit of it. 

Mr. Bennet. Not at all. 

Mr. Sulzek. Mr. Hayes, how~ would this do for an amendment to 
existing law: Suppose we amend the immigration act by saying, 
“ Provided, however, that hereafter no families of immigrants shall 
be separated except- 

Mr. Bennet. You mean all admitted or all excluded? 

Mr. Sulzer. Yes, practically, save in extreme cases. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That vrould work injustice. 

Mr. Sulzer. Not so much as at present. 

Mr. Sabath. Greater hardship than the present. 

Mr. Goldfogle. It would, for this reason: Suppose there be a fam¬ 
ily of six and one could riot be admitted for a very good and substan¬ 
tial reason, but the others would desire to come in, or the majority of 
them would desire to come in. Under such a provision you would 
have to exclude them all and thwart the desires of those who desired 
to come in, and deport them all. 

Mr. Sabath. It may be only a temporary ailment, and they may 
be sent back. I know of three families that have been sent back on 
account of children having ringworm, which can be cured within four 
or five or six months, or sometimes four or five weeks. I know where 
a mother and two children were separated from the father and three 
other children and sent back; and I know this also, that every cent 
they had, everything they had abroad, they sold and disposed of to 
pay the passage to come over here. What is to become of them when 
they are all deported? They have no place to go. They have no 
money to live on. They can not start housekeeping again. What 
would become of them ? Ido believe something ought to be done in 
a measure to right this wrong. 

Mr. Sulzer. In regard to your suggestion, I was going to say I am 
satisfied, from my knowledge of the operation of the immigration laws 
at Ellis Island—and I suppose it is the same at other ports of entry 
throughout the United States—that if we had a statute like that very 
few families would ever be sent back. It would have to be an extreme 
case. In the first place, the steamship companies would be more 
careful, and then fight to prevent deportation. 

Mr. Sabath. We do not want the steamship companies to get in 
a fight. 

Mr. Bennet. In the case of the Italian people, if you have the bill 
as you propose it, it would not only deport those where the mother 
and three or four children were brought over, but the father and the 
children who were here making a success would be deported as 
aliens. 


Mr. Goldfogle. And there would be no discretion, and the depart¬ 
ment at Washington would say, “We are compelled to deport.” 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


59 


Mr. Sulzer. We could go further, then, and say “ Provided , how¬ 
ever, That no family should be separated and some of its members 
deported unless they were insane, or criminal, or suffering from a 
loathsome or contagious disease .” That would be a good amendment 
to existing law. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That is the statute now, practically. 

Mr. Sulzer. Hardly; if it were, my bill would not be here. 

Mr. Kustermann. Why not leave the decision to the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor ? It seems to me there ought to be some one to 
have the case laid before, and then have it decided according to 
reason. 

Mr. Sulzer. The Secretary of Commerce and Labor, has decided 
many such cases. Families have been separated, causing great 
physical and mental suffering—in some cases suicide, and the families 
disrupted forever. If our immigration officials were more sympa¬ 
thetic, things would be different in many cases. 

Mr. Kustermann. Because he was forced to do so under the law, 
but if you change the law, leaving the decision with him- 

Mr. Sabath. My opinion is that under the present law the Secre¬ 
tary of Commerce and Labor has the power to use discretion in some 
of these cases, but somehow or other, within the last six months or so, 
there has been no discretion used on his part, nor on the part of any¬ 
one under him, and the laws are so strictly construed that it is abso¬ 
lutely impossible for anyone to enter the United States who suffers 
even slightly with a temporary ailment. 

Mr. Hayes. I want to state to Mr. Sulzer, and to all of you, that 
when there is a contagious disease, for example, in a community, the 
party who has it is isolated, taken forcibly, if necessary, from his 
mother and his family, and put in a pesthouse, or some place where 
that contagion can not be communicated. That is a great hardship, 
but it is necessary for the protection of the community. We must 
view this subject in the same light, it seems to me. Whatever is 
necessary to protect the United States from these evils that the immi¬ 
gration laws try to protect us from, that we must do, even though it 
works hardship. 

Mr. Sabath. I agree with you. I would not appeal for anyone 
with a loathsome or contagious disease. 

Mr. Burnett. I think another thing about it—that it would open 
the door and allow a great many other men to get in we don’t want to 
get in, and the perpetration of frauds of that kind. We have to 
protect ourselves as well as look at the sympathetic side of these 
questions. 

Mr. Bennet. How would this do, Mr. Sulzer, a resolution that in 
the administration of the immigration laws the Secretary of Com¬ 
merce and Labor and the boards of special inquiry are directed to 
avoid, as much as possible, within the law, the breaking up of families? 
That puts them in a position where, when a case comes before them, 
they have directions from Congress to avoid the breaking up of fam¬ 
ilies as much as possible, and still leaves them open to enforce the 
law. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That does not make definite legislation; it gives 
no direction; it furnishes no real guide. 

Mr. Hayes. The Secretary of Commerce and Labor now has dis¬ 
cretion to direct that one who is afflicted with even a loathsome or 



60 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


contagious disease, if it is curable, in his opinion, shall be detained in 
a hospital. 

Mr. Bennet. He can not do that. 

Mr. Hayes. I know that I have been at Ellis Island and I have 
seen children, as many as a half a dozen at one time, brought from 
the hospital who have scarlet fever and things of that kind. They 
detain them and detain the mothers. 

Mr. Bennet. They are admitted aliens. 

Mr. Hayes. They are as soon as they recover. If they do not 
recover they are sent back. 

Mr. Sabath. They are permitted to be sent to the hospital at the 
expense of the father or mother. 

Mr. Bennet. The steamship company. 

Mr. Sabath. It is the father, if he can afford to pay it. I know I 
myself in one case paid $90 where they ordered the deportation of a 
12-year-old child, where the mother and another child would have 
been obliged to be deported. They had no funds with which to pay 
the hospital expense, and I myself paid for three months for that 
child for his cure in the hospital. 

Mr. Hayes. But what I wanted to end up with was this: Is it not 
true that many of these cases of hardship would be, perhaps, entirely 
relieved if the Congress of the United States gives to Mr. Williams 
the appropriation he has asked for to greatly enlarge the hospital 
facilities at Ellis Island? 

Mr. Bennet. The House has already done it. 

Mr. Sabath. We have passed that. 

Mr. Hayes. I know, but the Senate has not yet. 

Mr. Sabath. I would suggest to Mr. Sulzer that he would think 
this matter over and prepare a bill, instead of this resolution. 

Mr. Hayes. Or a joint resolution. 

Mr. Sabath. Or a joint resolution, that would relieve the condi¬ 
tions. 

Mr. Sulzer. Gentlemen, to save time, I ask to have this resolution 
of mine referred to a committee consisting of Mr. Bennet and Judge 
Goldfogle, and I will be glad to cooperate with them to get it in shape 
to accomplish the results desired. 

Mr. Bennet. I think you had better make it a larger and different 
committee. Our sympathies are all the same way in regard to this 
subject. 

Mr. Sulzer. I would like to have it referred to a committee of 
three. 

Mr. Burnett. To do what? 

Mr. Sulzer. To get the matter in shape to meet the problem we 
are trying to solve, to prevent breaking up families by deporting 
some of its members for trivial reasons without rhyme or reason. 

Mr. Burnett. Merely by the introduction of a bill? 

Mr. Sulzer. I think the best way would be by an amendment to 
the present immigration laws. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Mr. Chairman, so that we can have this passed on 
regularly, I adopt the suggestion made by Mr. Sulzer and move that 
the matters embraced in the concurrent "resolution of Mr. Sulzer be 
referred to a committee of three for the purpose of considering the 
matter and reporting back to the committee. 

Mr. Hayes. Do you not think in such a small matter we can con¬ 
sider it in the whole committee? We have lots of time. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


61 


Mr. Goldfogle. We can do that. I have no objection to that, 
except that the subcommittee could formulate a proper amendment 
and bring it in to the whole committee. 

Mr. Bennet. As I understand, your suggestion was a committee 
of three appointed by the chair? 

Mr. Goldfogle. Certainly. 

Mr. Sulzer. Yes; that will do. 

The Chairman. Would you not have the committee named by 
yourselves ? I am perfectly willing that the membership should name 
the committee. 

Mr. Hayes. I do not think I could agree to that proposition as put, 
because I think that a matter of this great importance should not 
be submitted to a committee whose ideas are quite as well known as 
Mr. Goldfogle’s and Mr. Bennet’s. 

Mr. Sabath. The committee would report back to the whole com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Mr. Chairman, I would not invest this committee 
with any power. I would simply let them sit down and formulate a 
bill such as Mr. Sulzer suggests. 

Mr. Hayes. I do not think your recommendation would have any 
weight with me, and I think there are others who think the same way. 

Mr. Burnett. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the full com¬ 
mittee should first pass on the question here whether they would 
adopt the policy, and then, if they do, let it be referred to a special 
committee to formulate the bill. 

Mr. Bennet. Then, as long as we have this special order and have 
to be out of here at 12, we can take this matter up again at a special 
meeting. 

Mr. Sulzer. And I should like to be heard further in the matter* 

The Chairman. Without objection that course will be followed. 

(Thereupon, at 11.40 o’clock a. m. the committee proceeded to 
other business.) 


H. R. 18377. 


The committee, at 11.40 o’clock a. m., took under consideration 
House bill 18377, "A bill to amend an act entitled ‘An act to regulate 
the immigration of aliens into the United States,’ approved February 
20, 1907.” 

STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT PARSONS, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

Mr. Parsons. The object of the bill is to strike out the words “not 
involving moral turpitude,” in the first proviso of section 2 of the 
immigration act. 

Mr. Bennet. Pardon me, but is the provision to which you are 
going to refer the one on page 3, lines 15, 16, and 17, “Provided, That 
nothing in this act shall exclude, if otherwise admissible, persons 
convicted of an offense purely political?” 

Mr. Parsons. That is the way the act would read if amended. 

Mr. Hayes. How does it read now? 

Mr. Parsons. It reads now, “Provided, That nothing in this act 
shall exclude, if otherwise admissible, persons convicted of an offense 


62 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


purely political, not involving moral turpitude.” The words “offense 
purely political” constitute an international term. Under inter¬ 
national law this Government will not extradite a person accused or 
convicted of an offense purely political. That is the international 
law. It is provided for by treaty also. In almost every extradition 
treaty we have authorized the expression that no one should be 
extradited because accused or convicted of an offense purely political. 
For some reason or other there were added on to those words, when 
the exception was put in the immigration act, the words “not involv¬ 
ing moral turpitude.” The fact is that almost every offense purely 
political involves moral turpitude, unless you think that it is war¬ 
ranted because it is a political offense. I will give you some in¬ 
stances. 

When the young Turks overthrew the Sultan and marched into Con¬ 
stantinople, they shot a lot of people. Of course, their shooting was 
mutiny, and under ordinary circumstances it involves moral turpitude. 
That revolution was successful, however, and no question has arisen. 
But suppose the revolution had not been successful; then a lot of 
those soldiers would have been convicted. Supposing some of them 
had escaped and come to America. Then they would have been 
admissible on every ground except that they had been convicted 
of an offense; but it was a political offense, and then the authorities 
might have said, “Yes, but it is a political offense involving moral 
turpitude, because they shot somebody.” 

Another case came to my notice down in Nicaragua. A constituent 
of mine wrote me complaining that the Estrada people, who had under 
their control one of the ports on the Atlantic seaboard of Nicaragua, 
were collecting the customs duties and using them for themselves, and 
my constituent wanted to know whether he would have to pay the 
customs duties a second time to Zelaya if Zelaya suppressed the revo¬ 
lution. Supposing Estrada is unsuccessful, then Estrada’s collecting 
the customs duties is robbery, and that is a crime involving moral 
turpitude. But, under international law, it is a political offense, and 
the way the act would operate now, supposing some official of Estrada, 
who had collected these customs duties there, should, after Estrada 
was unsuccessful, if unsuccessful, be convicted of robbery—it may be 
a little difficult to suppose that in Nicaragua, but we will suppose it— 
then came up here and was detained, he would say, “My offense was 
purely political.” The immigration authorities would say, “Well, 
but it was robbery, and so involves moral turpitude.” Under inter¬ 
national law, if he got in here he could not be extradited. The diffi¬ 
culty is that he could not get in, under the language as it is now. 

Mr. Bennet. If our Revolution had been unsuccessful and they 
had had a law like this in, say, Germany, and George Washington 
fled to Germany, having been in charge of what, under those cir¬ 
cumstances, would have been rebel troops, would he have been 
admissible ? 

Mr. Parsons. He would have been inadmissible under this pro¬ 
vision. 

Mr. Hayes. Do the immigration officials interpret the law in that 
way? I do not think so. 

Mr. Parsons. They have not had any occasion to, because, as a 
matter of fact, most of the people who get in here who are guilty of 
these crimes get here before they have been convicted. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


63 


Mr. Hayes. I know; but think of all the Polanders in times gone 
by, the Hungarians, and everybody who has engaged in rebellion, 
and bloody rebellion, too, how many thousands of them have been 
admitted here. 

Mr. Parsons. But they had not been convicted before they came. 
I have a case with which Mr. Sabath and Mr. Goldfogle and Mr. 
Bennet are familiar, and it was through this case that my attention 
was called to the matter. I had occasion to defend a Russian revo¬ 
lutionist against extradition, a man by the name of Pouren, and 
finally succeeded, and there was a similar case in Chicago in which 
Mr. Sabath was interested. But my attention was called to these 
words in connection with the case, not that that case involved these 
words, but the lawyers for whom I was counsel told me that for some 
reason or other into the act had been incorporated those words “not 
involving moral turpitude,” and they suggested that the law ought to 
be changed. This man Pouren was engaged in the Lettish revolution 
in Russia, that is, a revolution in Livland, one of the Baltic provinces, 
which was an unsuccessful revolution, and he was accused of three 
series of crimes, murder, arson, and robbery. He admitted some ol 
them, and we showed, by quoting Mr. Fisher’s American Revolution, 
that what the American revolutionists did in the war of the Revolu¬ 
tion was just as bad as what Pouren was accused of doing in this 
Lettish revolution. 

Mr. Burnett. You mean he had been convicted of them? 

Mr. Parsons. No; he had not been convicted of them. 

Mr. Burnett. Then he should not have been excluded. 

Mr. Parsons. Supposing he had been cbnvicted of them and sent 
to Siberia and then had escaped from Siberia; he might not have 
been admitted here with those words in there. He was very fortu¬ 
nate in not being extradited, because I believe in his absence a court- 
martial sat and condemned him to death. I read that in the paper 
the other day. 

For a while these revolutionists were in control of a certain amount 
of territory in Livland—it was the time of the general revolution in 
Russia a few years ago—and they were very anxious to close up the 
grog shops, partly because those were things which were considered 
privileges of the nobility and partly because people got drunk 
there and gave away the secrets of the revolutionists; because all the 
people knew the revolutionists and knew what was going on, and it 
was only by the universal agreement of secrecy that the government 
could not find out. So that the revolutionists would go to an inn¬ 
keeper who kept a grog shop and say “Close up,” and he would 
generally close. Then the government troops would come along in 
a few days and say “Open up,” and he would. Then the revolu¬ 
tionists would go to him and say “If you open up again, we will fine 
you,” and if he did open up, after the troops went away they would 
come around and collect a fine. That was one of the charges. Then 
they said “If you open up again we will burn down your place,” 
and" when he opened up again they did burn down his place. 

Now, collecting the fine and burning down the place were crimes 
involving moral turpitude; but they were offenses purely political 
under the expression as understood in international law and as used 
in treaties, and the fact that the man would be convicted and then 
should escape to this country makes him a no less desirable citizen 
than if he escaped here before he had been convicted. 


64 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. Collecting the fine would not be involving moral 
turpitude. 

Mr. Parsons. It is robbery unless it is justified by revolution. 

Mr. Hayes. You do not contend that the case you just stated of 
the man who had not been convicted, who fled from the revolution, 
would result in his being excluded under existing law ? 

Mr. Parsons. Oh, no; because this proviso only applies to the case 
of men who have been convicted, but in every one of the cases I have 
mentioned the men would have been convicted if the revolution had 
been unsuccessful and if the Government could have gotten hold of 
them. Those men were no more morally wrong or no more undesira¬ 
ble citizens than were the people who got over here before they were 
convicted. I was very much interested in this Pouren case. We had 
a great many witnesses from Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 
employed in mill towns. They came down to New York and spent a 
week or ten days there. Although they were poor people, they would 
not accept any pay for their services—the committee offered them 
pay—and they were as fine a body of people as I have ever met, and I 
was glad to think that in escaping from Russia they came over here. 
I should hate to think that any of those people, if they had been con¬ 
victed and come over here, would be excluded because of these words 
in the act. 

Mr. Hayes. What I want to find out is, Can you cite us any 
specific cases where people of that kind have been excluded by the 
immigration officials ? 

Mr. Sabath. In both these cases Mr. Parsons states they had been 
ordered to be extradited, and it was after a hard struggle that took a 
great deal of time and a large amount of money that all these things 
were brought out and the men were saved. 

Mr. Parsons. They were not people who had escaped from Russia 
after having been convicted there. 

Mr. Elvins. Your amendment would reach only those who had 
broken jail, so to speak? 

Mr. Parsons. Yes. 

Mr. Elvins. Are there any such who get here? 

Mr. Parsons. I do not know, but there are likely to be such. 

Mr. Hayes. Let me suggest another question. We will take the 
case of Zelaya, down here in Nicaragua. Suppose he should apply for 
admission to the United States and your amendment had been passed; 
you would have to admit him. 

Mr. Parsons. You would have to admit him at any rate. 

Mr. Hayes. No, you would not. 

Mr. Bennet. He has not been convicted. 

Mr. Hayes. He ought to be. [Laughter.] Instead of narrowing 
it, I would broaden it to take him in. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Under existing law we would have to exclude 
Zelaya. 

Mr. Bennet. Oh, no. 

Mr. Burnett. Under that law you could admit a man who had 
made an attempt to dynamite the Emperor. 

Mr. Parsons. Yes; you might. 

Mr. Sabath. There is a special section as to that, a special provi¬ 
sion. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


65 


Mr. Parsons. I will say this about that, that all the extradition 
treaties provide that a man who attempts to blow up the Emperor 
hall be extradited. 

Mr. Burnett. That may be the treaty provision, but the law will 
absolutely nullify the treaty. 

Mr. Parsons. Oh, no; it will not nullify a treaty. 

Mr. Bennet. Yes; a statute supersedes a treaty. 

Mr. Parsons. The right of Russia to extradite a man and punish 
him there is not affected by your admitting him here, because we 
are extraditing people all the time who are admitted under the immi¬ 
gration law. 

Mr. Burnett. That may be true as to his extradition, but we are 
talking about his getting in. 

Mr. Bennet. Take that Pouren case, now. Section 2 describes 
the class of persons who are to be excluded from the United States. 
You say that since his arrival he has been convicted in his own coun¬ 
try of a crime involving moral turpitude. 

Mr. Parsons. I suppose it would be held involving moral turpi¬ 
tude. I have looked up the definition of “ moral turpitude,” and 
apparently those words mean anything that is wrong. 

Mr. Bennet. Under sections 20 and 21 he may be subject to 
deportation. 

Mr. Hayes. It depends on the immigration official. If he has any 
sense he will not deport him. 

Mr. Parsons. There was one case last year where three Russians 
from Siberia escaped and were landed in Alaska, but just what the 
question was which arose in their case I do not know. 

Mr. Sabath. One of them was landed in San Francisco in a barrel. 
He came over as freight. I know something about the case. 

Mr. Parsons. I knew you would. I am confident that there are a 
great many people in New York and Chicago at least who are inter¬ 
ested in the progressive movements in foreign countries who would 
like to see this slight amendment made, who probably have not agi¬ 
tated the matter because it has not been called to their attention, 
but those to whose attention it has been called, I am sure, all feel one 
way about it. I will be glad to answer any further questions. I 
thank you, gentlemen. 

(Thereupon, at 11.55 o'clock a. m. the committee adjourned.) 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday , February 8, 1910. 

The committee met at 10.30 a. m., Hon. Benjamin F. Howell 
(chairman) presiding. Others present were Representatives Elvins; 
Hayes; Edwards, of Kentucky; Burnett; O'Connell; Sabath; Moore, 
of Texas; Kustermann; Gardner, of Massachusetts; Bennet, of New 
York; and Johnson, of Ohio. 

The Chairman. We will proceed with the hearing. 

Mr. Hayes. I ask that Mr. Griffith may be heard by the committee. 
He is present. 

49090—10-5 



66 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM B. GRIFFITH, REPRESENTING 
THE STATE COUNCIL, JUNIOR ORDER UNITED AMERICAN 
MECHANICS, OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

Mr. Griffith. I represent the State Council Junior Order United 
American Mechanics, of the State of New York, an association com¬ 
posed of 25,000 voters in that State, being chairman of its legislative 
committee. At the last session of the state council some immigration 
resolutions were passed, a copy of which I have here, and which I 
beg to leave for your consideration. 

(The resolutions referred to by Mr. Griffith follow.) 

STATE COUNCIL JUNIOR ORDER UNITED AMERICAN MECHANICS OF THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK (INCORPORATED). 

The following resolutions were unanimously adopted at the last session of the state 
council held in Saratoga Springs, N. Y., September 6 and 7, 1909: 

“Whereas the foreign steamships bring to New York City alone more aliens than 
enter all other countries, as a result of making it the cheapest place to come to; and 
“Whereas in consequence of our being made a receptacle for all other countries’ 
surplus and undesirable populations, as shown by the enormous number of alien 
paupers, insane persons, and criminals in our public institutions, the taxpayers of 
New York State are shouldered with an annual financial burden of over $15,000,000, 
or one-fourth the State’s entire expenditures, for the support of foreign-born deficients, 
dependents, and delinquents; and 

“Whereas our existing federal immigration laws are totally inadequate even to 
secure the deportation of the thousand alien felons now doing service in our state 
prisons and are mere feeble police regulations; and 
“Whereas there is urgent need not only of the vigorous enforcement of the law, but 
the immediate enactment of additional restrictive measures, in order to prevent the 
continued increase of the already alarming large number of unemployed, to make it 
possible to remedy intolerable city congestion, to fortify against a repetition of the 
recent financial panic, so greatly intensified by the millions of dollars taken and sent 
abroad by immigrants, the bulk of whom come merely to earn a few hundred dollars, 
to preserve the time-honored integrity of our public schools, our traditional Sabbath, 
our other institutions, ideals and very civilization itself, upon which our material, 
mental, political, social, and whole welfare depends; and 

“Whereas recent revelations at Ellis Island show the great need of a more thorough 
inspection of immigrants, the enlargement and better pay of the officials, the still 
further increase in facilities and the liberal expenditure of large sums of money there 
for the better care, treatment, and protective handling of immigrants; and 

“Whereas the distribution of immigrants will merely make room for the steamships 
to dump more, and the finding of employment for foreigners alone is unpatriotic 
and unjust to our own, native or naturalized, unemployed, and should not be toler¬ 
ated on the part of the federal division of information and distribution: Therefore 
be it 

“Resolved, By the State Council Junior Order American Mechanics of New York 
State in annual convention assembled at Saratoga Springs, this 6th day of September, 
1909, that we enthusiastically indorse the patriotic efforts of Commissioner William 
Williams to more properly enforce the law, earnestly request the abolition of the 
division of information and distribution, denounce the majority report of the New 
York State immigration investigating commission as misrepresentative and indorse 
the minority report, and urge upon Congress the immediate enactment of legislation 
increasing the steamship head tax, requiring the possession of visible means of sup¬ 
port, providing for the deportation of alien paupers, insane, and criminals, excluding 
alien adults unable to read or write in some European language or dialect, as is required 
in. South Africa, Australia, and other civilized countries, "fining the steamships for 
bringing to this country excludable aliens where the ground for exclusion could have 
been, ascertained by a medical examination or other competent investigation at 
the time of embarkation, and such other restrictive measures as will tend to prevent 
us from continuing to be the only country with a considerable net foreign immigration, 
and in truth the world’s dumping ground; and be it further 

“Resolved, That the state legislative committee be instructed to further in every 
possible way the object and purpose of this resolution; and be it further 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


67 


“ Resolved, That we urge that a copy of this resolution be sent by the secretary to 
each member of the New York Congressional delegation, the Immigration Commission, 
the House and Senate Immigration Committee; and be it still further 

“Resolved, That we urge our state council officials to emphasize this important 
matter in view of the Immigration Commission’s report and Congressional action 
next winter, and that the whole matter be brought before the local councils with a 
view of taking it up with their Congressmen and New York Senators.” 

Yours in V., L. and P., 

[seal.] Lewis F. Page, 

S. C. Seci'etary, 1180 Fulton Street , Brooklyn , N. Y. 

Mr. Griffith. The recommendations contained in the resolutions 
are embodied practically word for word in Mr. Hayes’s bill, House bill 
13404. We ask in these resolutions that there should be an increase 
in the head tax, an illiteracy test, a money requirement, the deporta¬ 
tion of all alien paupers, insane and criminals; the abolition of the 
distribution bureau, additional restrictive legislation-, its proper en¬ 
forcement, and indorse enthusiastically Commissioner William Wil¬ 
liams’s appointment and administration at Ellis Island. Under the 
laws of the State of New York there is compulsory education—our 
native-born and foreign-born children must go to school. Unless the 
public-school system is wrong, we feel that as much should be required 
of aliens as of our own for participation in our industrial and political 
democracy. The illiteracy test requires nothing more than this: That 
aliens who are beyond the public-school age when they come to New 
York should at least have a rudimentary education; that they should 
at least read and write, if not in a European language, in some Euro¬ 
pean dialect that can be translated and made legible. To be natural¬ 
ized, an alien must be or ought to be able to read some language and 
understand English. 

We also are in favor of better naturalization laws. As they are 
at present, you demand that an alien must be able to understand 
English. We favor requiring him to read and interpret a portion of 
the Constitution of the United States. Why not keep that man out 
who can not read a portion of the Constitution of the United States 
in some language at the time he comes here, if he intends settling in a 
State where he must be able to do that in order to vote? Is it fair 
that you should demand that our children must go to school, must be 
educated up to a certain age, ahd yet allow those who are older and 
who are practically illiterate to come in freely from anywhere and 
everywhere, when we are spending millions of dollars annually on our 
public schools to banish illiteracy and ignorance from the land? 

Mr. Burnett. Does the State of New York require that before one 
can be entitled to vote he must be able to read and understand the 
Constitution of the United States? 

Mr. Griffith. I do not believe so; many States north as well as 
south do. It is difficult for a voter intelligently to vote if he can not 
read. I believe the naturalization laws are such that a man must 
understand something of the English language, and that means to 
be able to read it, in order to become a citizen of the United States. 

Mr. Sabath. Are you familiar with the naturalization laws? 

Mr. Griffith. Not thoroughly enough to argue the matter in 
detail. 

Mr. Sabath. You do not know then what the provisions are? 

Mr. Griffith. Not thoroughly enough without looking them up 
to argue them minutely. I came prepared merely to present these 


68 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


immigration resolutions which were passed at our last state session, 
representing the wishes of 25,000 voters in New York State, and con¬ 
taining their reasons therefor. 

Mr. Kustermann. From what body? 

Mr. Griffith. The Junior Order United American Mechanics of 
the State of New York. 

Mr. O’Connell. Is it not a fact that practically every criminal, or, 
if not every criminal, a great majority of the criminals, confined within 
the jails of New York can read and write? 

Mr. Griffith. That I can not say. 

Mr. Kustermann. We found that so in our State. 

Mr. O’Connell. It is so practically in all the States, I believe. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES H. PATTEN, SECRETARY IMMIGRA¬ 
TION RESTRICTION LEAGUE, BOSTON, MASS., AND CHAIRMAN 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN 

PURITY FEDERATION. 

Mr. Patten. According to the census of 1890 and 1900, about 21 
per cent of the alien or foreign-born criminals in the prisons and 
penitentiaries of the States and the United States were unable to read 
or write in any language. 

Mr. Sabath. Could not read or write the English language? 

Mr. Patten. No, sir; any language. The showing is much 
worse- 

Mr. O’Connell. The balance were able to read and write? 

Mr. Patten. Less than 79 per cent were literate and more than 
21 per cent were illiterate. 

Mr. Sabath. What is the percentage of the American-born? 

Mr. Patten. That is all complicated. The percentage of illiterate 
foreign-born white criminals is twice that of native whites. It all 
depends on whether you count and how you weight and average the 
blacks and others as to the native born. There is a large percentage 
throughout certain districts of the South- 

Mr. Sabath. I am not here to say anything against the South or 
anything against the East. You seem to know the general average 
of aliens and you are not discriminating; you do not pick out any 
one nationality. Can you give me now the general average of the 
American citizens ? 

Mr. Patten. My best recollection is that it is about half, but that 
is vitiated by the fact that a large percentage of the criminals in the 
South are illiterate negroes. Age and sex distribution and other 
qualifying factors are used to interpret and weight the statistical re¬ 
sults. As to native-born white criminals, the census of 1890 shows 
that the illiteracy of the foreign born was double that of the native 
born. 

Mr. O’Connell. Is it not a fact that the most notorious and dan¬ 
gerous criminals are the best educated? 

Mr. Patten. I think that is perfectly true; but they prey upon and 
use the illiterate as tools—they find the illiterate a more fertile field 
for- 

Mr. O’Connell. Who are very well educated? 

Mr. Patten. That is true, but the illiteracy test, as I said, is not 
meant as a substitute for our present laws, debarring criminals. It 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


69 


is proposed merely as an additional selective measure. It would 
seem that a few intelligent, well-educated criminals even, or anar¬ 
chists for that matter, are less dangerous to the country than large 
numbers of men too ignorant to see through their agitations, and 
forming inflammable material easily kindled into flames of disorder 
and lawlessness. Then, too, it is not true that the illiteracy test 
would be valueless as against criminals. For instance, as I said, if 
the test had been in effect the last half century 21 per cent of the 
foreign-born criminals in our jails and prisons would not have been 
admitted. These foreign criminals and, what is of greater im¬ 
portance, their children would not now be here to any extent if 
an illiteracy test had been enacted years ago, as it was in South 
African and Australian countries. 

Mr. Sabatii. I would like to ask where you obtained the figures? 

Mr. Patten. From the census of 1890 and 1900. 

Mr. Sabath. 1890? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir, 1890. 

Mr. Sabath. And 1900? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir; I think the same figures are to be obtained 
from the census of 1900. 

Mr. Sabath. Have you them here? 

Mr. Patten. I can refer you, for instance, to a book written by 
Prescott F. Hall, where he discusses the point at length. You will 
find a statement on page 279 of his book entitled “ Immigration and 
its effects upon the United States,” published by Henry Holt & Co., 
New York City. 

Mr. O’Connell. Prescott F. Hall is writing from your standpoint 
in behalf of exclusion based on an educational test? 

Mr. Patten. He is in favor of the illiteracy test and is opposed to 
leaving the selection of our immigrants entirely to the profit-making 
choice of the foreign steamship companies. 

Mr. O’Connell. He is a rabid enthusiast in your cause. 

Mr. Burnett. Mr. Patten says he has taken the figures from the 
census. 

Mr. Patten. I refreshed my recollection yesterday by looking the 
matter up in Mr. Hall’s book. I think I helped him prepare those 
figures or else verified them. He cites in a footnote a speech by Sen¬ 
ator Fairbanks, of Indiana, as an additional authority, I think. 

Mr. Sabath. That is what I wanted to show. 

Mr. Patten. I am positive that the census figures of 1890 show 
that over one-fifth of our foreign-born criminals are illiterate. As I 
said a moment ago, the illiteracy test is not proposed as a means of 
excluding criminals, it is not offered as a substitute for existing laws 
debarring criminals, but as an additional selective and restrictive 
measure, and on the ground that, for an enlightened democracy such 
as we have, on the average, the man who can read and write is more 
likely to be better fitted for American citizenship than the one who 
can not. If the steamships can not bring illiterates they will bring 
literates. Of course an elementary—even a high school—education is 
no absolute guaranty against rascality. The test is proposed' merely 
as another means of sifting out the more unassimilative aliens. It 
would seem, as Commissioner-General Sargent argued, that the man 
who can read, write, and figure must necessarily be better equipped 


70 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


for the struggle for existence—better prepared for American citizen¬ 
ship, and more likely to take up with our standards and ideals, else 
our whole public-school system is wrong. There are of course indi¬ 
vidual cases of illiterate persons making excellent citizens, but 
statistics show, as one would expect, that it is the illiterate who 
generally has criminal propensities, is averse to country life, settles 
down in the crowded quarters, takes no permanent interest in the 
country, lacks a knowledge of a trade, has lower standards of life, a 
less ambition to seek a better- 

Mr. Kustermann. He may not have had any chance to learn. 

Mr. Patten. That is true, but the public-school system, forms of 
government, and other institutions are reflections of capacities, 
characteristics, etc., of people- 

Mr. Kustermann. A good many countries do not offer the oppor¬ 
tunities that we offer. 

Mr. Sabath. How many of those that are employed, we will say, 
in building the railroads and in the mines can read and write? It is 
not absolutely necessary that a man should be a scholar, is it, to 
develop our country, to develop our farms, and to build our railroads? 

Mr. Patten. I should not say it were an absolute necessity. My 
best recollection is that Mr. Campbell, of the Department of Com¬ 
merce and Labor, stated before the House committee in 1906 that 
he thought a rudimentary education was undesirable among our 
working people. But, on the other hand, the late Commissioner- 
General of Immigration, Mr. Frank P. Sargent, in one of his annual 
reports, expressed a decidedly contrary opinion and argued that a 
rudimentary education certainly could not be a handicap in the 
struggle for existence, and the inference I drew from his statements 
was that it was decidedly desirable, and that our public-school system 
was all right. 

Mr. Sabath. I agree with him, of course. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Patten stated that it could be demonstrated 
from the report of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor that the 
head tax was not paying the expenses of the service. What the 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor said is this, on page 11 of his report 
for 1909: 

While the Immigration Service is assuming very large proportions and the expense 
is running into considerable figures, it is well to remember that the protection and 
fair treatment of human beings is one of its purposes, and that the head tax paid by 
the immigrants themselves still exceeds the cost of the entire immigration and natu¬ 
ralization services. 

Mr. Patten also stated that the head tax was not being collected, 
and I desire to insert in the record a letter from the Acting Secretary 
of Commerce and Labor, stating that that is not true. 

Mr. Patten. I have the figures and official reports upon which I 
relied for my information, which bear out my statements. 

Mr. Hayes. I have proof that that is so. 

Mr. Sabath. If it is not being collected, I am willing that we should 
amend that section. 

Mr. 0 ; Connell. Why are they not collected? 

Mr. Hayes. Because of instructions and regulations issued by 
Secretary Straus. 

Mr. Bennet. I will read this letter: 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


71 


February 7, 1910. 

Hon. William S. Bennet, M. C., 

House of Representatives, Washington , D. C. 

My Dear Mr. Bennet: In response to your letter of the 6th instant, in regard to 
a statement made before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization to the 
effect that head tax is not being collected on account of aliens who have previously 
resided in the United States (nonimmigrant aliens), I desire to advise you that head 
tax is collected on account of all aliens entering the United States, with the exception 
of those coming within the classes specifically enumerated in rules 1, 40, and 41, 
reference being made to pages 26, 27, 28, 64, and 65 of the inclosed pamphlet. 

Those are the exceptions under the law. 

Mr. Hayes. They are not all by law. 

Mr. Bennet. I will read them. It is not his construction. [Reads:] 

Rule 2. Exemptions from head tax. —The head tax shall not be levied in respect 
of the following aliens: 

(а) Aliens who do not enter the United States because excluded from admission 
thereto by the immigration act. (Secs. 1 and 2.) 

(б) Diplomatic and consular officers and other accredited officials of foreign govern¬ 
ments, their suites, families, and guests coming to the United States to reside or to pass 
through in transit. (Sec. 41.) 

(c) Head tax shall not be collected on account of aliens entering the United States 
from Canada, Newfoundland, Cuba, or Mexico whose legal domicile or bona fide resi¬ 
dence was in one of the countries specified for at least one year immediately preceding 
euch entrance if it merely appears that the continuity of their physical presence at 
their place of residence or domicile was broken by one or more transient and temporary 
departures therefrom; nor shall head tax be collected on account of such aliens if it 
merely appears that, instead of entering the United States from Canada, Newfoundland, 
Cuba, or Mexico directly, they come by way of some other foreign country in which 
they had made a merely temporary or transient sojourn. 

( d ) Head tax shall not be collected on account of aliens reentering the United States 
from Canada, Newfoundland, Cuba, or Mexico who are citizens thereof but who have 
acquired a legal domicile or bona fide residence in the United States, and who are 
returning from a visit to one of the said countries, notwithstanding that the period 
of a full year has not intervened between the date of their departure from and the date 
of their return to the United States. 

Mr. Hayes. That is not in the law, but it seems to be a reasonable 
provision. 

Mr. Bennet. It is practically based on the statute. 

Mr. Hayes. There is no law for that. 

Mr. Bennet. (Reads:) 

(e) Aliens, otherwise admissible, who are residents of any possession of the United 
States, provided at the time of admission to such possession head tax was paid on 
their account. (Sec. 1.) 

(/) Aliens who enter the United States only for the purpose of transit to foreign 
destinations. Collections made in respect of such aliens will be held on special deposit 
and will be refunded pursuant to Rules 1 and 41. (Sec. 1.) 

( g) Aliens who have been lawfully admitted to the United States and who later 
shall go in transit from one part of the United States to another through foreign con¬ 
tiguous territory. Satisfactory evidence erf such previous lawful admission and of 
previous payment of head tax" shall be required in the case of aliens on whose behalf 
this exemption is claimed, as in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this rule. Personal knowl¬ 
edge on the part of an immigration officer, or a written statement from such an officer 
based on an examination of official records certifying to the fact of previous entry 
and payment of tax, will be sufficient. As evidence of the continuity of the transit, 
production of a dated passenger ticket, where such exists, may be required. (Sec. I.) 

(h) Aliens arriving in Guam, Porto Rico, or Hawaii; but if any such alien, not hav¬ 
ing become a citizen of the United States, shall later arrive at any port or place of the 
United States on the North American continent the provisions for the levy and col¬ 
lection of head tax shall apply. (Sec. 1.) 

Mr. Hayes. Not one is provided by law. 

Mr. Sabath. Mr. Bennet is a member of the committee and we can 
hear from him at any time. I see a great many gentlemen here who 
likely desire to be heard, and I think we should give them a chance. 


72 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Sulzer. I have to go to another committee meeting, and if the 
committee will pardon me I simply desire to say that I want to be 
heard in opposition to Mr. Hayes’s bill. I would like to have the clerk 
make a memorandum of that fact, and if he will notify me I will come 
at any time. I see you have all you can do this morning, and so I will 
not take up anymore of your time, because I am a very busy man. 

Mr. Bennet. Rules 40 and 41 refer to aliens in transit who are 
specifically exempted and excepted by the statute. [Reads:] 

Rule 40. Aliens in transit .—Every alien seeking a landing for the purpose of pro¬ 
ceeding directly through the United States to a foreign country shall be examined, and, 
if found to be a member of any one of the excluded classes, shall be refused permission 
to land, in the same manner as though he intended to remain in the United States. 
Oases where a refusal of the privilege would entail exceptional hardship may be 
reported to the Secretary for a special ruling. 

Rule 41. Aliens in transit , head tax for. — (a) No alien desiring admission at a port 
of the United States for the professed purpose of proceeding directly therefrom to 
foreign territory shall be permitted to land thereat except after deposit with the 
collector of customs at said port, by the master or owner of the vessel or by a repre¬ 
sentative of any other mode of transportation by which such alien is brought, 
of the amount of the head tax ($4) prescribed by section 1 of the immigration act, 
said amount to be refunded upon proof satisfactory to the immigration officer in 
charge at the port of arrival that said alien has passed by direct and continuous journey 
through and out of the United States within thirty days from the date of admission, 

E roof of such departure to be furnished within sixty days from the date of admission. 

pecial deposits of head tax on account of aliens in transit will, at the expiration of 
sixty days from the date of admission, be covered into the Treasury as head tax, the 
cases in which proof of departure is received after the expiration of such period to 
be reported to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization for special authorization, 
under the provision incorporated in the legislative, executive, and judicial appropria¬ 
tion act approved February 3, 1905. 

(6) All aliens of the taxable class desiring to proceed in transit through the United 
States from the Dominion of Canada shall be required to furnish to the examining 
officer or officers guaranty of payment of head tax described in paragraph (k) of rule 
25 of these regulations. If admissible, aliens claiming to be in transit will be given 
certificate Form 523, providing for refund of head tax upon such certificate being 
properly indorsed by the alien and by the purser of the outgoing trans-Atlantic or 
trans-Pacific steamship upon which the holder of said certificate may depart from 
the United States; or, if the alien be passing in transit through the United States 
from one point in Canada to another point in Canada, then such indorsement to be 
made by the conductor of the train upon which the holder of the certificate departs 
from the United States. 

(c) Refund of head tax will be made on aliens of the taxable class arriving at Atlantic 
or Pacific ports of Canada and desiring to proceed immediately in transit through the 
United States to the transportation line responsible for payment of head tax on such 
aliens, upon proof satisfactory to the United States commissioner of immigration for 
Canada that said aliens have passed by direct and continuous journey through and 
out of the United States within the time limit specified in this rule. 

(d) Even though an alien, being a “transit passenger,” enters and leaves the United 
States at the same port the provisions of this rule shall be applied to his case to the 
same extent, and in the same manner so far as necessary as though such alien entered 
at one port and departed through another. In the cases of those entering across the 
Canadian border as transient visitors, however, Form No. 569 will be used instead of 
Form No. 523, under the procedure laid down in paragraph (6) hereof. 

(e) A class of “transit passengers” which requires somewhat different treatment in 
practice than “transits” as ordinarily understood and “ transient visitors,” whose cases 
are covered by the preceding paragraphs hereof, consists of aliens visiting the United 
States as tourists, on pleasure or business. With regard to such class, no payment or 
deposit of head tax need be required if the immigration officers at the port of entry 
are satisfied that it is the bona fide intent of the passenger merely to visit or tour the 
United States. For instance, when an alien is in possession of first-class round trip 
or through transportation, or-other circumstances are present indicating with rea¬ 
sonable certainty that the passenger is a tourist, deposit should not be required; if 
doubt exists, he should be classed as a “transit” or “transient visitor.” 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


73 


Mr. Hayes. There is absolutely no statutory authority for exempt¬ 
ing “transient” aliens, as is done by (E) of No. 41 of the Straus rules. 
I am advised by those familiar with the situation that under the rul¬ 
ing of the previous Secretary of Commerce and Labor [Mr. Straus] 
aliens who have heretofore been admitted to the United States are 
not even inspected—-were not in 1908. The Secretary' simply tried 
by his rules and regulations, as he did by his decisions, No. 116, for 
instance, to construe the statutory phrases “aliens” and “every 
alien” into “immigrant alien” and “aliens leaving a foreign per¬ 
manent domicile and intending to reside in this country,” which opens 
up the way to all sorts of frauds and defrauding of the Government. 

Mr. O’Connell. Those aliens, in the first place, have already paid 
their head tax. 

Mr. Hayes. I do not care about that. 

Mr. O’Connell. You would not have them pay it again? 

Mr. Hayes. They should be inspected. The immigration officers 
do not do their duty if they do not inspect them. 

Mr. O’Connell. I think you are mistaken. From my experience 
in Boston I think they are making the necessary inspection. 

Mr. Bennet. On February 22, 1909, the House of Representatives 
made an inquiry of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor in regard 
to this matter, and on February 25, 1909, the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor replied in an official document in which he covered the 
whole matter. During the preceding year 14 aliens were allowed to 
enter this country solely because of a satisfactorily established claim 
of theretofore acquired permanent domicile; that during the same 
period 6 aliens who were otherwise inadmissible were admitted upon 
a satisfactorily established claim of domicile, making a total of 20, 
and the action in those cases was based not on any rule, but on three 
or four decisions of the circuit court of appeals in different parts of 
the United States, all of which are to the effect that a foreigner 
who seeks readmission to this country to resume a formerly acquired 
and unrelinquished domicile is not an alien within the meaning of the 
immigration law. 

Mr. Hayes. If you put in any evidence, I want to put in something 
to show the contrary. 

Mr. Bennet. I think that is right. 

Mr. Patten. May I be heard on those points. First, in regard to 
whether the “head-tax receipts” exceed all the immigration service 
disbursements. If you take the disbursements and receipts of the 
immigrant fund for the years 1907 and 1908 they will show that the 
disbursements exceeded the receipts for those two years by about 
$2,000,000. If you take them for 1908—at the beginning of that 
fiscal year—on July 1, the balance in the immigrant fund was over 
$3,000,000 and by the end of that fiscal year it dwindled to about 
$500,000. The immigrant fund started the fiscal year of 1908 with 
a balance of over $3,000,000 and it wound it up with a balance of only 
$555,000. It may have been that some items were carried over from 
1907, but those would have made 1907 all the worse. Now, take 
last year- 

Mr. Hayes. That is, the fiscal year 1909? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir; ending June 30, 1909. I have here the 
Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 



74 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. For what year? 

Mr. Patten. 1909. 

Mr. Burnett. The fiscal year ending June 30, 1909? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir. On pages 72 and 73 you will find the 
items to which I referred when before this committee two weeks ago. 
I stated then that all aliens, immigrants and nonimmigrants—I 
included both—that “all aliens” did not pay the $4 tax. I stated 
merely that each and every alien entering the country did not pay 
the tax, which the Secretary’s letter admits, and th£ quoted rules show. 
On page 73 we find that the receipts from the $4 tax for the year 
1909 were $3,243,220. Now, admitting that some of the steamship 
companies do not pay all that is due promptly—but that is a common 
factor for each year, about as much being carried over from one as 
from the next—you will find that if you divide that amount by 4 
that the tax was paid on only 810,805 aliens for 1909, when, as a 
matter of fact, 944,235 entered the country, leaving a difference of 
133,430, for whom, according to these figures, the steamships did 
not pay the $4 tax. 

Mr. O’Connell. Are not they expressly exempt by law? 

Mr. Patten. Some are. I did not say there were no exemptions. 
I made no such statement as that. You must multiply the total 
number of aliens by $4. Nine hundred and forty-four thousand two 
hundred and thirty-five aliens came. That would amount to 
$3,776,940, if the steamships paid $4 for every alien. Some are 
exempt by statute and some through the administration and con¬ 
struction of the law, where there is no specific exempting provision. 
I did not say or mean to convey, and feel certain I did not convey, 
the idea that no aliens were exempt. I did not mean to misrepresent 
the facts, and I do not believe I did, if my statement is taken word 
for word and fairly construed. As to this particular point, if you 
take the annual report, the official statistics, you will find that the 
balance of $3,000,000 at the beginning of the year 1908 was reduced 
during the year, in spite of the receipts, to $555,000. One million 
six hundred and fifty thousand dollars ought to have been paid into 
that fund which was not. But that, even, leaves a big difference for 
that year on the deficit side of almost $1,000,000. 

Mr. Bennet. I can state the reason for that. In that year they 
changed their method of bookkeeping. 

Mr. Patten. I took the two fiscal years of 1907 and 1908 together 
and showed that the disbursements had exceeded the receipts, so as 
to cover any such explanation. The balance on hand in the immi¬ 
grant fund at the beginning of the fiscal year of 1907 was about 
$2,500,000. The balance on hand at the close of the fiscal year of 
1908 was only $550,917.04, which shows there was a large excess of 
disbursements over receipts. 

Mr. Bennet. The figures of the preceding years are not at all 
important, because the head tax was increased and is now double 
what it was, but they have changed the method of bookkeeping, and 
for the first time they have charged up against the balance special 
appropriations not heretofore deducted, $1,259,529.13, and they 
have then charged up amounts appropriated and not expended as 
follows: 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 75 

Appropriation, “‘ Enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion act,” 1908. $500, 000. 00 

Appropriation, “Immigrant station, Charleston, S. C.”. 70,000.00 

Appropriation, “Immigrant station, Galveston, Tex.”. 70, 000. 00 

Appropriation, “Immigrant station, New Orleans, La.”. 70, 000. 00 

Appropriation, “Immigrant station, Philadelphia, Pa.”. 250,000.00 

Reimbursement, Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service. 150, 000. 00 

Addition to old hospital building, Ellis Island. 250, 000. 00 

Additional buildings contagious-disease hospital, Ellis Island. 150, 000. 00 

New water main, Ellis Island. 18,000.00 

Mechanical equipment, contagious-disease hospital, Ellis Island. 115,’ 000. 00 

Immigration Commission. 75 ? 677.14 


Amount of special appropriations to be reimbursed from the 
‘ ‘ immigrant fund ”. 1 , 718 , 677.14 


or a total of over $3,000,000 charged against the fund by a change in 
the method of bookkeeping. 

Mr. O’Connell. I think this observation should be made—that all 
those expenditures are for permanent improvements and not merely 
for the continuing expenses, but they are making property for the 
Government. 

Mr. Bennet. They are proper charges against the head tax. They 
are charged up here not as matters that have been spent, but matters 
appropriated and which will be spent some time in years to come. 

Mr. O’Connell. Exactly; that is my point. 

Mr. Sabath. Five hundred thousand dollars for the enforcement of 
the Chinese-exclusion act is taken also from this immigrant fund? 

Mr. Bennet. Always. 

Mr. Sabath. They in no way contribute anything toward the fund. 

Mr. Hayes. They pay the tax. 

Mr. Sabath. We do not permit any Chinese to land. 

Mr. Hayes. Oh, we do. 

Mr. Sabath. That $500,000 would come out of the General Treas¬ 
ury if it were not for the head tax, so we help to spend in California 
$500,000. 

Mr. Hayes. Not only in California, but anywhere on the borders. 

Mr. Bennet. That report, as Mr. Patten knows, does not show 
money that is spent, but simply shows charges which will come 
against the fund, that the balance of $550,917.04 on June 30, 1908, 
was not the balance at the close of the year, but would be the balance 
if every cent appropriated had been spent during that year, which, 
of course, was not. 

Mr. Patten . The balance in the fund was reduced that year from three 
millions to half a million dollars. There was need of its expenditure and 
more, too, I think. It should also be stated that there was not half 
enough appropriated for most of the purposes, whether spent or not 
spent—it ought to have been, in my humble opinion. If the committee 
will permit the expression, I think much more ought to have been appro¬ 
priated for every one of those stations. That the $250,000 has not 
been spent in Philadelphia is no fault of the Government. Phila¬ 
delphia seems to want the station, but not the immigrants. Con¬ 
ditions at all the stations are far from adequate. Immigrants at 
Boston, for instance, are detained on Long Wharf in a wooden struc¬ 
ture which is a reproach to this Government. The detention quarters 
at Ellis Island, as the gentleman from New York knows, where from 
800 to 1,200 detained aliens have to be crowded into a little room not 
over 60 feet by 150 feet, are simply a disgrace. I stopped over and 















76 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


visited that room a few days ago on my way back here, and it is 
indeed “a reproach,” as Commissioner Williams says, in his last 
annual report, “to this Government.” In my humble opinion the 
appropriation in the recent urgent deficiency bill should have been 
larger than the $90,000 which it carried in order to meet the imme¬ 
diate needs of the service at Ellis Island. 

Mr. Sabath. I agree with you as to the conditions at Ellis Island. 

Mr. Patten. At practically all the other ports the immigrants are 
examined on the docks of the steamships, detained in rented quarters 
or those furnished by the steamships, and lack even suitable and safe 
detention rooms, to say nothing of hospitals and other needed facilities. 
Long wharf at Boston is inadequate and unsafe, and the proposed 
station ought to have been started and the appropriation and more 
too spent long since. 

Mr. O'Connell. The onty reason why the accommodations at 
Boston are not adequate is because of lack of modern requirements 
for the building. It is a wooden structure on a wooden wharf and 
that is the element of danger, but on the other hand there is nothing 
disgraceful about it. 

Mr. Patten. It is a reproach to the Government, and if a fire should 
break out there would be a repetition of the Ellis Island fire, or some¬ 
thing in the nature of the General Slocum disaster, that would call 
forth the severest kind of criticism. 

Mr. O'Connell. Very few are detained there, as a matter of fact. 

Mr. Bennet. I asked Commissioner Williams yesterday if they 
had ever asked for a single dollar for Ellis Island that they did not get. 
He said they never had. As a matter of fact, since I have been in 
Congress in the last four years, not one single request has come from 
Ellis Island for money that they have not been given, and this in¬ 
formation four years ago from James Bronson Reynolds, every single 
complaint of that kind that the department has asked Congress to 
remove has been removed. Only the other day, in response to the 
request that Commissioner Williams made, the House appropriated 
every dollar he asked for. 

Mr. Patten. I will say that the report of Mr. Reynolds three 
years ago last November was simply and solely as to the treatment 
and care of the insane and mentally defective at Ellis Island, and 
Mr. Watchorn in his report to the department in answer to Mr. 
Reynolds’s criticism said that he had repeatedly asked for an appropri¬ 
ation and that Congress had not made it. That was his reason for the 
maintenance of the scandalous conditions which Mr. Reynolds 
found. He said that he had asked for an appropriation and had not 
changed those awful conditions because of the failure of Congress to 
make the necessary appropriation. That is a matter of record at 
the department. With regard to Mr. Reynolds’s whole report on the 
treatment and care of the insane and mentally defective at Ellis 
Island, which was largely if not solely concerned with a certain 
detention room there, I would say that, according to Commissioner 
Williams’s last annual report, the conditions have not been fully 
remedied, for he complains: 

Certain wooden barracks are now used for this purpose. They were never intended 
to stand permanently, and furthermore are dangerous by reason of their inflammability. 

Those are the conditions that have not been removed, and they 
should have been over three years ago. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


77 


Now, as to the question whether last year's disbursements exceeded 
the receipts. The department prophesied before the House appro¬ 
priation subcommittee a deficit of $600,000. Take the figures to be 
round on page 72 of the Seventh (1909) Annual Report of the Secre¬ 
tary of Commerce and Labor. These show that the direct disburse¬ 
ments of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization for the past 
fiscal year were $3,564,769.71. On the opposite page you will find 
that the “head-tax receipts" were $3,243,220. According to those 
figures the disbursements exceeded “ head tax receipts" by $321,549.71. 
From that, in order to ascertain whether all expenditures exceed all 
receipts, must be deducted “receipts" from “exclusive privileges at 
immigrant stations,” $14,016; and naturalization fees, $186,516.75. 
Such deductions leave a difference or excess of debits over credits 
of $121,016.96. If } T ou should add to that, as should be added, the 
item on page 73, “By the special disbursing agents of the Immigra¬ 
tion Service, $46,636.21," you would have an excess of disbursements 
over receipts for 1908 of $167,653.17. It is true that all the appro¬ 
priation for the enforcement of the Chinese exclusion act was not 
spent and some of it reverted, but it should have been and much more, 
too, if that act is to be properly enforced, as Mr. Hayes knows. Not 
only that, but there should be added a number of indirect expenses of 
about four or five hundred thousand dollars that are not charged up at all 
to the Immigration Service, such as certain expenses of the Department 
of Justice, part of the Secretary's salary, traveling and office expenses, 
and one thing and another, which would completely offset any and all 
possible explanations, in my opinion. Then, too, a good-sized appro¬ 
priation for special work in enforcing the contract labor and other pro¬ 
visions of our immigration laws, as well as the passenger act, seems 
sorely needed in view of the Immigration Commission's findings. 

Mr. Sabath. Does the report show what the expenditures were r 
including all these appropriations for buildings ? # 

Mr. Hayes. Not for last year. 

Mr. Bennet. $862,602.37 for Ellis Island and $10,000 at Galveston. 

Mr. Hayes. No new buildings? 

Mr. Bennet. That was chrged up twice in their bookkeeping. 
They charged it up the year before and this year they charged it again 
as they spent it. They charged $431,815.15 for the enforcement 
of the Chinese exclusion act. 

Mr. Patten. That is not a second charge ■ — 

Mr. Bennet. That is an annual appropriation. It was charged up 
the year before. 

Mr. Hayes. That does not affect the last year. 

Mr. Bennet. What Mr. Patten is trying to show is that there was a 
deficit in 1908, by charging up everything that had been appropriated. 
Now he is attempting to show that they spent the money again and 
that there is a deficit in 1909. 

Mr. Hayes. He is using the statements of the Department of Com¬ 
merce and Labor. If they are guilty of any such bookkeeping as you 
say, I think they need an expert bookkeeper. 

Mr. Bennet. That may be; I am not defending them. 

Mr. Patten. These are simply direct expenditures, and if you also 
take into consideration the legitimate indirect expenditures, I think 
you can show an excess of expenditures over receipts, although I did 
not go quite that far in my statement two weeks ago. The Secretary 


78 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


considers this bureau the most important of his work, I understand, 
and if that is true, as it certainly seems to be, a major portion of his 
salary and expenses should be charged up to the Immigration Service 
account. There are other indirect expenditures of the same kind 
that should be included. Then, too, in previous years, from time to 
time, I believe the Government has appropriated directly and indi¬ 
rectly large sums for the Immigration Service, and if these were 
included in a statement, the indirect expenditures as well as the direct 
expenditures, even, for any one or two years, it is my opinion, judging 
from what I can find out from these officially published reports, that as 
a rule the so-called “head-tax receipts” do not pay the total expenses 
of the Immigration Service. That was all I meant to conclude or 
argue at most. It is a matter on which the Secretary or his represent¬ 
ative can express a much more authoritative opinion, of course, with 
their inside knowledge of the premises. 

Mr. Burnett. You mean the expenses of the Commissioner- 
General and the clerical force in his office? 

Mr. Patten. As I understand, the salary of the Commissioner- 
General and the expenses of his office, but not the secretary’s salary 
or any of his office expenses, are charged up to the Immigration 
Service. I do not believe that his traveling expenses on immigration 
matters are so charged. I do not believe a part of the department’s 
printing plant expenses either are charged up, although it does much 
printing for the bureau. There are a number of other indirect 
expenses in this and other departments which would run into the 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, I should think, that ought to be 
properly included as immigration expenditures, in order to reach 
accurately the excess of debits over credits. 

Mr. Burnett. The immigration fund is covered into the General 
Treasury now? 

Mr. Patten, Yes, sir; since July 1 last, and Chairman Tawney 
said on the 24th of last month again, as he said then—I have here a 
copy of the Congressional Record—that the reason why the immigrant 
fund was abolished was owing to an approaching balance in red fig¬ 
ures—a deficit. 

Mr. Bennet. It is true there was a limitation of $2,500,000 on 
the head tax, but there was a surplus of $880,000 for that fiscal year. 

Mr. Hayes. What year? 

Mr. Bennet. For the time up to when the amendment was put 
on the sundry civil bill last year. They did put a limitation on the 
bill. 

Mr. Patten. Take, for instance, the two years of 1907 and 1908. 
There was on hand July 1, 1908, a balance, as I said, of $3,079,515.26 
in the immigrant fund, and by the close of that fiscal year it had 
fallen to only $550,917.04. If you take the two years of 1907 and 
1908, as I said a while ago, so as to eliminate the bookkeeping 
explanation, you will find that the disbursements exceeded the receipts 
by about $2,000,000. For the year 1908 the disbursements from 
the immigrant fund exceeded its receipts by $2,528,598.22. For 
that year the actual excess of disbursements over actual receipts 
was $928,967.94, according to the official published figures, if no 
attention is paid to the “covering limitation,” which allowed only 
$2,500,000 or the $3,300,000 “total” receipts to be credited to the 
immigrant fund. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


79 


Mr. Kustermann. You, as the paid agent of the Immigration 
Restriction League, seem to be very anxious to have immigrants 
have proper accommodations and quarters, while the purpose of your 
league is to exclude them as much as possible and to make it unneces¬ 
sary to have any immigrant stations ? 

Mr. Patten. I beg pardon, but the object of the Immigration 
Restriction League and of the American Purity Federation is not 
exclusion, except as to undesirables. Each stands for certain ex¬ 
clusions and restrictions, but neither is opposed to immigration per 
se. I do not believe an increase in the “head tax,” or rather 
steamship per capita tax, to $10 would increase the steerage rates, 
and consequently I do not believe there is a bit of restriction even 
in it. I think as Mr. Gardner, of this committee, has ably argued in 
the House, that it would have to be put up to $25 or $50 in order to 
compel the steamship companies to charge as much or more to this 
country than they charge to other countries to which they are run¬ 
ning and thus materially affect the number coming here. The pres¬ 
ent rates are from $5 to $65 less than to South America and South 
Australia. I have considerable data froi the steamship companies 
on that point, and feel quite certain of my conclusions. Now, in 
order to restrict you would have to make the steamship tax $40 or 
$50, in my opinion, before the transportation companies which are 
now charging “all the traffic will bear,” would raise their rates suf¬ 
ficiently to deter any number of immigrants from coming. 

Mr. Kustermann. You want to go step by step and eventually 
reach that point? 

Mr. Patten. That is not the controlling idea or motive with me 
or the public-spirited organizations I represent, I am sure; and if I 
could show you the minutes of the meetings of the executive com¬ 
mittees, you would find that they have never advocated this increased 
tax for that purpose whatever the members may think individually 
or the organizations may do after the illiteracy test becomes a law. 
The most selective and restrictive measure which the Immigration 
Restriction League of Boston and the Purity Federation have advo¬ 
cated has been the illiteracy test. I do not believe you can find in 
their private records or public utterances or in their pamphlets any¬ 
thing to the contrary- 

Mr. Kustermann. I should like to refer to one of the pamphlets 
issued by the League wherein it is stated that the reason so few chil¬ 
dren were found in American families was simply because they did 
not want those poor children, if born, exposed to the children of the 
immigrants, that they do not want them to come together. That is 
the spirit of your League? 

Mr. Patten. I beg pardon, Mr. Kustermann, I think if you will 
look at that pamphlet you will find that that is an article or quotation 
from an author of international reputation, the late Gen. Francis A. 
Walker, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and 
the chief of two United States censuses, who made a very close and 
thorough statistical study of the question. 

Mr. Kustermann. They were very anxious to quote it. I do not 
care who said it, they had it in their own pamphlet. 

Mr. Patten. You will remember that the investigations of the 
industrial commission bore out General Walker’s conclusions; for it 
concluded: “It is a hasty assumption which holds that immigration 



80 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


during the nineteenth century has increased the total population” of 
the United States. (Vol. XV, p. 277.) The point being that recent 
foreign immigration has been a substitution for rather than an 
addition to our population, in the manner in which your statement 
indicated. Census statistics show that the population of the South 
has increased faster out of its own loins alone than has the population 
of the North out of its loins and from foreign immigration, both 
together. 

Mr. Sabath. You are referring to the colored population of the 
South? 

Mr. Patten. I am referring to the population of the South, either 
or both, colored and uncolored. 

Mr. Sabath. Just put in the word “colored.” 

Mr. Patten. You can take it either white or black, or both. I 
think the census will show that the average increase in the native 
birth rate in the South has been about 30 per cent per decade, whereas 
in the North it has fallen off to almost nothing, as Walker and the 
industrial commission point out exclusively in the very States, counties,, 
and localities where recent foreign immigration has competed. There 
is, for instance, no place in this country where you will find so many- 
old maids, bachelors, late marriages, small families, and so mucn 
“race suicide” as you will find in the very towns and communities 
of the Northeast to which is destined fully 90 per cent of the present 
influx. I am speaking of the masses, and not of the so-called “flower 
of society” which is small and dies off everywhere. 

There are a number of factors, but the cause of causes, for many 
reasons, is the enormous inflow and efflux of aliens with lower stand¬ 
ards and different ideals. It is the character of the present immi¬ 
gration, the fact that about three-fourths are unmarried male adults, 
that the bulk comes without any visible means of support, ignorant 
of our conditions, lacking a knowledge of our language, illiterate, 
and unused to self-government and self-care; for instance, last year 
one-fourth of those coming did not have money enough to prepay 
their passage to this country, and almost one-third of the adults could 
not read and write. They were unable to speak our language. Less 
than 10 per cent of them had ever been here before. They were 
unacquainted with .our conditions, and had to find some kind of work 
at almost any wage, and thus in certain northeast labor centers sub¬ 
jected workers to a cutthroat, ruinous competition, which seems to 
need protection. They come as birds of passage, about half of those 
who came have gone back during the last ten years, and have gone 
back with large savings—“Grasshopper immigrants,” Editor John 
Temple Graves calls them,- 

Mr. Bennet. Half have gone back ? 

Mr. Patten. Yes; about half, perhaps I should have said. Thirty- 
five or 40 per cent, to be accurate. 

Mr. O’Connell. You are away off. 

Mr. Sabath. You are mistaken when you state that they come 
here without a cent in their pockets. The fact is that a direct order 
has been issued by the Immigration Commissioner which precludes 
anyone entering the United States unless he has at least $25 of his own 
money on his person, and I know that the average must be fully $50. 

Mr. Bennet. Do you mean that they have gone back to remain 
permanently ? 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


81 


Mr. Patten. Did I use the word “permanently V’ 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Patten. I do not believe the record will show that I did. I 
said that half have gone back with their savings. Immigrants are 
admitted every day now, and have been, under Commissioner Williams, 
without anything like $25 in hand, provided they are not likely to 
become public charges- 

Mr. Bennet. Forty per cent of them have gone back. 

Mr. Patten. That was my point. I will give you the figures. 
The total alien arrivals for the past ten years have been 8,515,889 
and the total departures have been 3,275,589, according to the 
annual reports of the Commissioner-General of Immigration. 

Mr. Bennet. Those are the figures from the steamship companies; 
they are not from the official reports ? 

Mr. Patten. I took them from the Annual Report of the Commis¬ 
sioner-General, an official government publication. I do not think 
I misstate the facts, Mr. Bennet. 

Mr. Johnson. Why do they go back? 

Mr. O’Connell. They go away in the winter time and come back 
in the spring. 

Mr. Sabath. They go back because there is no employment. The 
moment they think there will be no employment or no work, they 
leave. 

Mr. Johnson. They simply come here and take up the work of our 
people and when our people have not the work they go back? 

Mr. Sabath. No; I did not mean to say that at all. They come 
here to assist and to do the real hard work that a great many of our 
own laboring men will not do. 

Mr. Edwards. Does not their coming here in effect force our peo¬ 
ple to work at a less wage? 

Mr. Sabath. No; I will tell you why. You take the places in the 
United States where the immigrant lands and where he goes and 
you will find that the price of wages is higher usually than at the 
places in the United States where the immigrant never goes. 

Mr. Edwards. Is not that explained by the fact that the places 
where they land are the great cities, where the cost of living and 
wages generally and all expenses are much higher? 

Mr. Sabath. They do not go to the great cities alone. They enter 
New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Boston, but they do not 
remain there. They go all over the country. 

Mr. Hayes. Seventy-five per cent of them remain there. 

Mr. Sabath. If 75 per cent of the people who landed in New York 
remained there, the city of New York to-day would have 15,000,000 
people. 

Mr. Hayes. I mean they land in New York and go to Chicago or 
Pittsburg or some other great city, or return to their native lands with 
their savings. 

Mr. Sabath. You will find that not more than 25 per cent of the 
immigrants reside in the large cities, like New York, Chicago, or Pitts¬ 
burg. If they do come there, they remain only a short time, and then 
go farther west. 

Mr. Edwards. Would it not be fairer to state that when the immi¬ 
grant lands in New York City or any other large city he goes where 

49090—10-6 



82 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


wages are higher, than to state that where the immigrant is the wages 
are higher? 

Mr. Sabath. No, sir; I think he goes where he is needed. 

Mr. Edwards. And where they need him they pay a big price? 

Mr Sabath. They work on the railroads; that is, building the 
tracks. The hardest work in this country is being done by the 
immigrants. You go into the mines and in the lumber camps, all 
the real hard work is done by the immigrants, and the same in the 
mills, the dangerous work. 

Mr. Edwards. There is plenty of American labor to do that work. 

Mr. O’Connell. They will not do it. 

Mr. Sabath. I do not think they compete with the American 
labor. I think they advance the American laborer. That is my 
sincere opinion. 

Mr. Edwards. Perhaps our laboring people will not do the work 
at the prices that they will do it, but is there any reason why an 
American laborer who works in the tunnels and on the railroads 
should not have compensation by which he can live a decent, respect¬ 
able life and educate his children, the same as a professional man or 
a business man? 

Mr. Sabath. There is no one in this room who is more anxious 
and more desirous to obtain the highest possible wages for our 
laboring men and to better their condition than I am. 

Mr. Edwards. Do you think you can do that by admitting these 
people who have not had the advantages and who do not appreciate 
the advantages that the American workingmen have and who are 
willing to work for less wages than they are ? 

Mr. Sabath. They are not willing to work for less wages. You 
will find that the foreigner who comes here, as a rule, joins the union 
as soon as he gets an opportunity, and the union to-day, more than 
anything else, is responsible for the wages that the laboring man is 
receiving. 

Mr. Gardner. Have we not some witness here, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Patten. I happen to have here the report of the proceedings 
of a conference Secretary Straus held with representatives of labor, 
and I would like to read what Mr. John Mitchell said at that con¬ 
ference on the point just under discussion. It is published in a 
volume of 133 pages and is entitled “ Labor Conference—Proceedings 
of the Conference with the Representatives of Labor held in the Office 
of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, February 10 and 11, 1909,” 
and can be secured from the department, which has copies for free 
distribution, I believe. 

Mr. O’Connell. Is that a government publication? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir. 

Mr. O’Connell. Published by whom? 

Mr. Patten. The Department of Commerce and Labor, last year. 
Mr. John Mitchell, who used to be president of the miners’ union, 
stated in regard to the point which has just been discussed—the 
question being put to him by Secretary Straus as to whether immi¬ 
grants did not push all other laborers up, Mr. Mitchell replied: 

No; not at all. If it was, then I should say that there ought to be about 15,000 
John Mitchells who were ex-presidents of the United Mine Workers of America, and 
who are now prominently before the people of the United States. Probably of the 
thousands of men who, like myself, were pushed up, I was the one who rose where 
the rest fell. Mr. Secretary, I know what it is to fight against influences that push 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


83 


a man down. The only thing in my experience that I could not do was to beg for 
something to eat. I always asked a chance to work for my something to eat. But 
I do know hundreds of men, Mr. Secretary—I have seen them in my life and talked 
with them, because I have been interested in these problems—I have found hun¬ 
dreds of men who were not quite so sensitive as I was, but whose hardships had hard¬ 
ened them so that they forgot their desire to rise in the world, and, as a result of unem¬ 
ployment, had got into a state of mind and into a condition where they did not 
want work. 

A man who starts out for employment is at first a respectable, high-class man, but 
he has no place to work and no money to buy food, and just as surely as mingling with 
depravity lowers a man step by step until he no longer wants to associate with honor¬ 
able men, so it is that unemployment and beating your way from place to place and 
associating only with those who will associate with you lowers you down until you 
forget the condition in which you used to be or until it only comes to you like a lin¬ 
gering memory. Sometimes like a dream these men look back to the pinnacle on 
which they once were, when they were wage-earners; but they have been driven 
down and have become of the type that has been described. They are tramps, bums, 
and finally hoboes—men who no longer want work because they have got away from 
it, just as we find men in other classes of society who go down, down, down, until the 
better part of their manhood is submerged and they can not rise again. So, instead of 
these immigrants pushing men up to better planes of society, they push them out. Of 
course, I know—I have read the books that have been written about one class being 
supplanted by another in whole communities. I suppose you are familiar with the 
Slav invasion of the anthracite coal fields; how the English, Irish, and Scotch em¬ 
ployees were there first, and then came along the Slavs, and slowly but surely drove 
them from place to place, and drove them up the valley. Mr. Powderly knows more 
about it than I do—how the English-speaking men made their last stand right up at 
Mr. Powderly’s home, and now they are going from there. True, some of them have 
entered the railway service; we have lots of them who are railroad men now, and 
others have become policemen—strong, big, fine men. But there are hundreds of 
them, you will find, wandering up and down in America. 

Mr. Kustermann. I have seen the immigrants accused of a great 
many things, but to be accused in that article of being tramps and 
hobos, that is a character by itself. You can not get a hobo to 
work. They never care for work. The idea of wasting our good 
time in reading that stuff! 

Mr. Burnett. Are not men being made tramps by being out of 
work? 

Mr. Kustermann. No, sir. You never looked into the tramp ques¬ 
tion. I was right in that business. I had the penitentiaries and 
workhouses and all those things under my charge. I know the tramp. 
The tramp is born. He is good for nothing. He will not work. He 
would not work for you if you give him a chance. 

Mr. O’Connell. He is an idler. 

Mr. Kustermann. They would not accept work. I have asked them 
to come and saw my wood, and they would skip away. 

Mr. Patten. These proceedings contain expressions of similar 
opinions by labor leaders and labor representatives, all in accord 
with Mr. Mitchell’s experience. It seems to be their opinion that the 
present foreign immigration of from 900,000 to 1,400,000 aliens 
annually has the effect of making tramps, hoboes, criminals, and 
drunkards, etc., of those already here—that it pushes them down 
and out or aside, rather, or much more than up—that, as put by Mr. 
Gardner, the existing eighty or ninety millions of people here are 
too large a superstructure for the newcomers to lift. 

Mr. Gardner. Have you the resolutions passed at the last meeting 
of the American Federation of Labor? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir; I think I have them here. 

Mr. Elvins. You stated a moment ago that the immigrant goes 
back at times to relieve the situation here. 


84 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Sabath. When they go back? 

Mr. Elvins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Edwards. Does that not put our laborers on equal footing 
with the country they come from? 

Mr. Sabath. I said there was a greater demand here and better 
conditions. I said that they earned more money here. I will say 
this, that for every dollar that they do take when they leave, they 
have at least created $3. Do you suppose that without this labor 
our exports would be so large in our favor? 

Mr. Edwards. Who gets the $3? 

Mr. Sabath. The country. They create that much wealth. 

Mr. Edwards. The laboring men do not get it. 

Mr. Elvins. If these people go back to relieve the condition, I want 
to know if it would also follow that if they did not come over here 
the condition would not be created? 

Mr. Sabath. I really do believe we do need labor. You pick up 
any paper in the United States, not perhaps this month, but after 
next month, and you will find that labor is in demand. The people in 
the South and in the West, they want labor everywhere. They want 
labor on the railroads, in the mines, and in the fields, everywhere. 

Mr. Elvins. Why do they go back? 

Mr. Sabath. The moment they think there is not any demand for 
labor a good many of them go back. I admit that the south Italians 
do come here, remain here during the summer months, and go back in 
the winter time. I myself am not in favor of the people coming here 
and going back, but when they do come here and make it their home, 
I think within a very short time they do help to advance the cause of 
labor. 

Mr. Johnson. How can the interests of labor be enhanced by 
bringing in additional laborers ? 

Mr. Sabath. Because they create a larger demand for labor. 

Mr. Patten. This resolution is taken from page 321 of the proceed¬ 
ings of the last annual convention of the American Federation of 
Labor, held last November. It is in line with previous resolutions. 
According to the proceedings it was a unanimous vote, no objection 
appearing. I imagine that if notice were sent to their legislative 
agent he would be glad to appear before this committee and indicate 
the attitude of that body. 

(Mr. Patten read as follows:) 

Whereas the illiteracy test is the most practical means for restricting the present 
stimulated influx of cheap labor, whose competition is so ruinous to the workers already 
here, whether native or foreign; and 

Whereas an increased head tax upon steamships is needed to provide better facili¬ 
ties, to more efficiently enforce our immigration laws, and to restrict immigration; and 

Whereas the requirement of some visible means of support would enable immi¬ 
grants to find profitable employment; and 

Whereas the effect of the federal bureau of distribution is to stimulate foreign immi¬ 
gration: Therefore be it 

Resolved , By the American Federation of Labor in twenty-ninth annual convention 
assembled, that we demand the enactment of the illiteracy test, the money test, an 
increased head tax, and the abolition of the distribution bureau; and, be it further 

Resolved , That we favor heavily fining the foreign steamships for bringing debarable 
aliens where reasons for debarment could have been ascertained at time of sale .of 
ticket. 

Mr. Sabath. Is that the entire resolution? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


85 


Mr. Sabath. Anything on the injunction? 

Mr. Patten. Yes, sir; according to the proceedings a number of 
other resolutions were adopted. 

Mr. Sabath. Can you produce all the other resolutions that have 
been passed and read them? 

Mr. Patten. I think they are all in the proceedings. 

I have here a number of resolutions passed by state legislatures, 
farmers’ unions, patriotic societies, boards of charities, congresses, 
etc., which show the attitude of the public and the universal interest 
in the question, and which, if it would please the committee, I would 
be glad to leave for incorporation in the hearing as showing a decided 
and widespread demand for restrictive legislation. 

(The resolutions referred to by Mr. Patten follow.) 

JOINT RESOLUTION PETITIONING OUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS 
TO ENACT MORE STRINGENT IMMIGRATION LAWS. 

Whereas the dumping of a million immigrants into the United States annually 
is a fact for which the world offers no precedent and is a menace to American insti¬ 
tutions, the American home, and the American laborer; and 

Whereas there are now many bills before the Congress of the United States for the 
better regulation of immigration and the revision of the tariff; and 

Whereas the regulation of foreign immigration is a necessary supplement to the 
tariff, an essential element in the protection of America from ruinous competition by 
cheap labor at home, ruinous in our endeavor to establish an American industrial 
democracy; and 

Whereas a protective tariff, without proper immigration regulation, is a travesty 
on the industrial problem, Therefore, 

Be it resolved by the general assembly of the State of Ohio , That we respectfully ask 
our Senators and Representatives in Congress to enact more stringent immigration 
laws to protect our people, both native-born and naturalized, against wholesale 
immigration from foreign lands. 

Granville W. Mooney, 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Francis W. Treadway, 

Adopted March 12, 1909. President of the Senate. 

United States of America, Ohio, 

Office of the Secretary of State. 

I, Carmi A. Thompson, secretary of state of the State of Ohio, do hereby certify that 
the foregoing is an exemplified copy, carefully compared by me with the original 
rolls now on file in this office, and in my official custody as secretary of state, as 
required by the laws of the State of Ohio, of a joint resolution adopted by the general 
assembly of the State of Ohio on the 12th day of March, A. D. 1909. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official 
seal, at Columbus, this 15th day of April, A. D. 1909. 

[seal.] Carmi A. Thompson, 

Secretary of State. 


House of Representatives, 

State of Pennsylvania, 

March 22, 1909. 

This is to certify that the following is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed 
the above date: 

“Whereas the dumping of a million immigrants into the United States annually is a 
fact for which the world offers no precedent and is a menace to American institutions, 
the American home, and the American laborer; and 

“Whereas there are now many bills before the Congress of the United States for the 
better regulation of immigration and the revision of the tariff; and 

“Whereas the regulation of foreign immigration is a necessary supplement to the 
tariff, an essential element in the protection of America from ruinous competition by 



86 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


cheap labor at home, ruinous in our endeavor to establish an American industrial 
democracy; and 

“Whereas a protective tariff, without proper immigration regulation, is a travesty on 
the industrial problem: Therefore be it 

“ Resolved by the house of representatives of the State of Pennsylvania , That we respect¬ 
fully request our Senators and Representatives in Congress to enact more stringent 
immigration laws to protect our people, both native born and naturalized, against 
wholesale immigration from foreign lands.” 

Thomas H. Garvin, 

Chief Clerk House of Representatives. 


JOINT RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE IN EVERY POSSIBLE MANNER THE INFLUX INTO VIRGINIA 
OF IMMIGRANTS FROM SOUTHERN EUROPE. 

Resolved by the senate of Virginia {the'house of delegates concurring ), That our Repre¬ 
sentatives in both Houses of Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to oppose in 
every possible manner the influx into Virginia of immigrants from southern Europe, 
with their Mafia and Black Hand and murder societies, and with no characteristics to 
make them with us a homogeneous people, believing as we do that upon Anglo-Saxon 
supremacy depends the future welfare and prosperity of this Commonwealth, and we 
view with alarm any effort that may tend to corrupt its citizenship. 

Agreed to by general assembly of Virginia February 14, 1908. 

Jno. W. Williams, 

Clerk House of Delegates and Keeper of Records of Virginia . 


Whereas much of the greatness of the United States is due to the energetic, indus¬ 
trious, and patriotic immigration which came to this country during the past century; 
and 

Whereas a strict execution of the present laws makes it possible to keep out the 
worst of the pauper and diseased elements of our present European and Asiatic im¬ 
migration, but these laws admit large numbers of immigrants who are generally unde¬ 
desirable because unintelligent, of low vitality, of poor physique, able to perform only 
the cheapest kind of manual labor, tending to become a burden upon our large cities, 
and not available for supplying the need for agricultural laborers; and 

Whereas the coming of these undesirable aliens tends not only to lower the standards 
of American citizenship but also to prevent the coming of immigrants who would be 
valuable workers in the country districts and who would readily assimilate with our 
population: Therefore be it 

Resolved, That the Farmers’ National Congress urges upon the Senators and Repre¬ 
sentatives of the United States the importance of further judicious regulations of im¬ 
migration, and in particular demands the enactment of a law raising the present head 
tax upon immigrants to at least $10, and excluding absolutely immigrants of poor 
physique and those who are unable to read in some language. 

Adopted September 14,1905, at Richmond, Va., by the Farmers’ National Congress. 


Whereas the United States Immigration Commission, after a three years’ investi¬ 
gation, reports that “many undesirable aliens enter this country every year,” and 
lecommends legislation along the lines of our previous resolutions: Therefore, 
Resolved, That we again urge upon our Senators and Representatives the judicious 
restriction of foreign immigration by means of an increased head tax, a money test, 
a rigid physical and mental test, an illiteracy test, and especially the fining of the 
steamship companies $500 for every rejected alien brought to this country whose 
condition could have been learned at the time of purchasing passage; and be it further 
Resolved, That in view of congressional action this session, we direct our officials, 
and particularly our legislative agent, to further in every possible way the object and 
purpose of these and previous resolutions. 

Adopted November 7, 1909, at Raleigh, N. C., by the Farmers’ National Congress. 





HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 87 

Whereas it is proposed to distribute and divert foreign immigrants to the agricul¬ 
tural districts of the South and West; and 

W hereas a federal bureau has been established and state immigration bureaus are 
proposed for that purpose; and 

W hereas we are unalterably opposed to such and to the present enormous alien 
influx as detrimental to the best interests of the farming communities and the wel¬ 
fare of our whole country: Therefore be it 
Resolved, That the Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union of America, in 
national rally assembled at Memphis, Tenn., this 8th day of January, 1908, and 
representing 2,000,000 farmers, urge upon Congress the immediate abolition of the 
federal bureau of distribution and the speedy enactment of laws substantially exclud¬ 
ing the present enormous alien influx by means of an increased head tax, a money 
requirement, the illiteracy test, and other measures; and that we call upon our public, 
and especially our state, officials to prevent the agricultural section from becoming a 
dumping ground for foreign immigration. 

J. T. Dickey (Ga.) 

M. G. Jackson (Tex.) 

H. P. Hudson (Tenn.) 


Whereas, foreign immigration is being advocated for southern and western farming 
communities, a United States immigration commission is investigating the subject, 
and a federal bureau is being established for the purpose of distributing and diverting 
foreigners; and 

Whereas the present flagrant lax enforcement of existing immigration laws and the 
urgent need of additional restrictive legislation will soon result in the agricultural 
sections of the South and West being made a dumping ground for undesirable south¬ 
east European and Asiatic populations: Therefore be it 
Resolved, That the Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union of America, in its 
fourth annual convention at Fort W 7 orth, Tex., this 3d day of September, 1908, and 
representing over two millions of farmers, hereby adopts the immigration resolutions 

f iassed last January at the annual rally in Memphis, calling for federal and state legis- 
ation abolishing immigration bureaus and substantially excluding the present alien 
influx from southeast Europe and western Asia, and urge upon our federal officials the 
vigorous enforcement of all immigration laws in order to properly protect the country’s 
welfare and to preserve its institutions, safeguard its citizenship, and preserve its 
Anglo-Saxon civilization for posterity; and be it further 
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to each Member of Congress by 
the chairman of the national legislative committee with the request that they be 
printed in the Congressional Record and to the Immigration Commission with the 
request that they be incorporated in its report; and be it further 

Resolved, That the state presidents and lecturers emphasize this one question with a 
view to having members take it up in conference and by letter with their Congress¬ 
men and Senators. 


WTiereas the United States Immigration Commission will report to the next session 
of Congress, recommending legislation; and 

WTiereas we are unalterably opposed to the present foreign influx from southeast 
Europe and western Asia, its proposed distribution and diversion to the South and 
W 7 est, and have in local, state, and national convention resolved in favor of the enact¬ 
ment and vigorous enforcement of rigidly restrictive immigration laws: Therefore be it 
Resolved, That the Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union of America in fifth 
annual convention assembled at Birmigham, Ala., this 9th day of September, 1909, 
representing over 2,000,000 of farmers, reiterate and reaffirm the immigration resolu¬ 
tions adopted unanimously at Memphis, January 8, and at Fort W 7 orth, September 3, 
1908, calling upon our state and particularly our federal officials to exclude the present 
foreign influx by means of an increased head tax, a money test, the illiteracy test, and 
other effective measures; and be it further * 

Resolved, That the national legislative committee send copies of this and previous 
resolutions to the President for his annual message, to the immigration commission for 
its report, and to the Senate and House Immigration Committees for legislation, and 
do all it possibly can to secure legislation along the lines of this and previous resolu¬ 
tions; and be it still further 

Resolved, That the national secretary send copies of this resolution and previous ones 
to the various state secretaries with the request that the matter be taken up by locals 
with their Senators and Congressmen with a view to congressional action. 




88 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Whereas the foreign steamship companies are bringing to this country the less 
desirable classes of foreigners, even the best of whom come single handed and alone, 
to soon return to their native lands with their parsimonious hoardings, thus causing 
race suicide, intensifying financial panics, undermining our standards, and menacing 
our institutions and ideals; and 

Whereas our public lands are exhausted, city congestion is becoming intolerable, 
thousands of our citizens, native and naturalized, with each industrial reaction are 
being increasingly crowded across the Canadian and Mexican borders, and our own 
are being subjected to ruinous competition and frequently being driven as delinquents ' 
or dependents into our public institutions; and 

Whereas the Federal Government is being urged to find employment for and even 
to provide transportation for aliens, exclusively, to interior points, while our own 
native or naturalized unemployed are left to shift for themselves; and 
Whereas a rigorous enforcement of our existing feeble immigration laws is impera¬ 
tive for the prevention of this country being made a dump for the inmates of foreign 
public institutions: Therefore be it 

Resolved , by the National Council, Order United American Mechanics, in its 
sixty-third annual session, this 24th day of August, 1909, at Providence, R. I., that 
we urge upon Congress the enactment of additional legislation, strengthening existing 
laws and further restricting foreign immigration by means of an increased head tax, 
a money test, the exclusion of alien adults unable to read in a European language or 
dialect, the fining of the foreign steamship companies for bringing here deportable 
immigrants, and such other measures as will exclude the present influx of foreign 
undesirables, protect the country’s welfare, preserve its institutions, and maintain 
its present high ideals; and be it further 

Resolved , That an immigration legislative committee be appointed by the national 
councillor to represent the order and further the object and purposes of this resolu¬ 
tion; and be it further 

Resolved , That we urge our national, state, and local secretaries to emphasize this 
question with a view to having local councils pass resolutions and take the matter up 
with their Congressmen and Senators at the next session of Congress, when the com¬ 
mission reports and legislation is pending at Washington; and be it further 

Resolved , That a copy of this resolution be sent by the national secretary to the 
Immigration Commission, the President, and to the members of the Senate and House 
Immigration Committees; and be it further 
Resolved , That we heartily commend the patriotic efforts of the present commis¬ 
sioner of immigration at Ellis Island to properly enforce the law. 


RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT TAMPA, FLA., FEBRUARY 13, 1908, BY THE IMMIGRATION CON¬ 
VENTION, COMPOSED OF DELEGATES FROM OTHER STATES, REPRESENTING ORGANIZED 
LABOR, ASSOCIATIONS, PRIVATE CORPORATIONS OR INTERESTS, AND RAILROADS. 

Resolved , That the several States carefully consider the question of foreign immigra¬ 
tion as a national question, and that our Representatives in Congress be asked to urge 
upon Congress the enactment of such federal legislation as will effectively stem the 
tide of undesirable immigration now pouring into this country through the great ports 
of entry, and such laws as will look to the careful examination of applicants for ad¬ 
mission at the ports of departure. 


Whereas the distribution of aliens from northern cities and their diversion from 
abroad to the South is being agitated; and 

Whereas the United States Immigration Commission is now investigating the atti¬ 
tude of the South toward these proposals and there is need of the farmers of Mississippi 
making khown their wishes: Therefore be it 
Resolved , That the Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union of the State of 
Mississippi is irrevocably opposed to the present tide of undesirable immigration now 
pouring into this country from sections of Europe, Asia, and Africa, which until re¬ 
cently sent us no immigrants, and that we urge all our officials and legislators, both 
state and national, to use their influence in every possible way to make clear our 
opposition and to secure reports and legislation that will exclude the present alien 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 89 

influx, which is detrimental to our best interests and to the welfare of our country; 
and be it further 

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to our Congressmen and Senators 
and to the Immigration Commission at Washington; and be it further 

Resolved, That the state presidents and lecturers emphasize this one question, and 
that copies of this resolution be furnished the press. 

(Passed unanimously by the Mississippi State Farmers’ Union, at Jackson, Miss., 
July 8, 1908.) 


Whereas it is proposed to send immigrants to the South; and 
Whereas a Federal Government bureau has been created by Congress for the pur¬ 
pose of distributing and sending foreigners, now congesting the Northeast and coming 
to this country in such large numbers, to the agricultural sections of the South; and 
Whereas we are unalterably opposed to such and to the present enormous alien 
influx from southeast Europe and western Asia, as detrimental to our best interests 
and the welfare of the whole country; and 

Whereas the State of South Carolina abolished its bureau of immigration March 4 
last and forbade the inducement of foreign immigration: Therefore be it 
Resolved , That the South Carolina Division of the Farmers’ Educational and Co¬ 
operative Union of America, in annual convention assembled at Columbia, this 29th 
day of July, 1909, and representing 60,000 farmers, indorse and adopt the immigration 
resolutions passed by the National Farmers’ Union at Fort Worth, Tex., last Septem¬ 
ber, and urge upon Congress the immediate abolition of the federal bureau of distribu¬ 
tion, and the speedy enactment of restriction laws substantially excluding the present 
enormous foreign influx of over 1,000,000 per year, by means of an increased head tax, 
a money requirement, the illiteracy test, and other restrictive measures; and be it 
further 

Resolved, That we call upon our State and particularly our South Carolina Con¬ 
gressmen and Senators to do all they can to prevent the agricultural sections being 
made a dump for foreign immigration; and be it still further 
Resolved, That the state union secretary-treasurer send a certified copy of these 
resolutions to each of our United States Senators and Congressmen, and to the United 
States Immigration Commission, and to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor at 
Washington, D. C. 


Whereas foreign immigration is proposed for the agricultural sections of the South; 

and 

Whereas the Federal Government is especially investigating the attitude of 
southern planters toward the distribution and diversion of the present- alien influx 
to the South; and 

Whereas the farmers of Georgia are unalterably opposed to such, and are in favor 
of the substantial exclusion of the classes now pouring into this country: Therefore 
be it 

Resolved, That the Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union of the State of 
Georgia, representing over 100,000 farmers, in annual convention assembled in 
Macon, Ga., this 29th day of July, 1908, do hereby express our opposition to foreign 
immigration, and urge our state and national officials to use their utmost influence in 
every possible way to secure the substantial exclusion of the present foreign influx 
and to prevent Georgia being made the dumping ground for foreign immigration; 
and be it further 

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the Immigration Commission 
and the Commissioner-General at Washington, D. C., and to the Georgia general 
assembly and to our Congressmen and Senators; and that' the local presidents and 
lecturers make a special point of this question in their own work. 




90 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


RESOLUTION ON IMMIGRATION PASSED BY THE STATE FARMERS’ UNION OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA. 

Greenwood, S. C., July 26, 1907. 

We wish to go on record as being unalterably opposed to the foreign element being 
distributed among the manufacturing interests in this State and other Southern 
States, and ask that the state support be withdrawn from the state immigration bu¬ 
reau and that our state and national Representatives are hereby requested not to 
encourage immigration. 

J. B. Watson, 

John T. Boggs, 

Committee. 


RESOLUTION ON IMMIGRATION. 

The following resolutions were unanimously adopted at the Thirty-seventh Annual 
Session of the State Council of Ohio, Junior Order American Mechanics, Toledo, Ohio: 

Title, Regulation of immigration . 

Whereas the Immigration Commission appointed under the act of February 27, 
1907, has already spent more than two years of time and almost a half million dollars 
qf money in investigating the causes and sources of immigration into the United States 
and the effect of such immigration upon our people; and 

Whereas the dumping of a million immigrants mto the United States annually is a 
fact for which the world offers no precedent, and is a menace to American institutions, 
the American home, and the American laborer; and 

Whereas the regulation of foreign immigration is necessary to protect Americans 
from ruinous competition by cheap labor in our own country; and 

Whereas a tariff on manufactured articles does not afford protection against the 
millions of paupers who are coming into the United States to compete with American 
labor; and 

Whereas all good citizens are anxious for such regulation of immigration, to be pre¬ 
scribed by law, the application of which will result in securing only those immigrants 
whose standards and ideals compare favorably with our own: Therefore, be it 

Resolved by the State Council of Ohio, Junior Order United American Mechanics, assem¬ 
bled in annual session at Toledo, Ohio, That we demand the immediate report of the 
Immigration Commission and amendments to present immigration laws, as follows: 

1. A repeal of section 40, which authorizes the establishment of a division of infor¬ 
mation, for the reason that such division has become a government employment 
agency for alien laborers to the hindrance of native-born and naturalized laboring 
men and women already in the United States. 

2. An increase in the head tax from $4, as now collected, to $10. 

3. Require each immigrant, unless he be a political refugee, to bring with him not 
less than $25 in money, in addition to the amount required to pay transportation to 
the point where he expects to reside or find employment. 

4. Require all immigrants, between the ages of 14 and 50 years, when asked so to do 
by an officer of the United States, to read a section of the Constitution of the United 
States in an European language or dialect. 

5. Deny admission to all unmarried females who are unaccompanied by a parent 
or brother, or who are not coming to a parent or brother; and be it further 

Resolved, That the state council secretary be directed to forward a certified copy 
•of these resolutions to the Members of the United States Senate and House of Repre¬ 
sentatives from Ohio. 

Jesse Taylor (No. 31). 

Reinhard Schwald (No. 324). 

Approved: 

Smith W. Bennett, 

E. W. Kite, 

C. G. Herbruck, 

Committee on Good of the Order. 

D. S. C. Reuter, of No. 49, moved to adopt the resolution, which was agreed to. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


91 


W hereas the Patriotic Sons of America has labored consistently for the proper en- 
forcement and enactment of federal legislation restricting foreign immigration; and 

W hereas the United States Immigration Commission, after a three years’ investiga¬ 
tion, will report to the next Congress, recommending additional legislation, and since 
our worthy national president has so ably called attention to this important question, 
of such vital interest and consequence to every good American, native or naturalized: 
Therefore be it 

Resolved by the Patriotic Order Sons of America in national camp at New York City 
this 30th day of September , 1909, That we commend our national president’s patriotic 
sentiments, the work of our national legislative committee, the loyal support of mem¬ 
bers particularly to that committee, and urge upon Congress and reaffirm our belief 
in the enactment of a properly applied illiteracy test, an increased head tax, a money 
test , and such other measures as will restrict and sift out undesirable and the less assim¬ 
ilative aliens, and be it further 

Resolved, That we indorse the patriotic efforts of the present commissioner at New 
York City to enforce our existing feeble immigration laws and urge our national officials, 
and particularly our national legislative committee, to do all they can to secure the 
passage of additional immigration laws and to carry out the object and purposes of these 
resolutions; and be it still further 

Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be sent by the national secretary to the 
Commissioner of Immigration at New York City, the United States Immigration Com¬ 
mission at Washington, and the Senate and House Immigration committees. 


Whereas the foreign steamship companies are making this country the only dumping 
ground for the Old World’s least desirable peoples; and 

Whereas our public domain is exhausted, population has begun to recoil upon itself, 
congesting in the large cities and industrial centers, where hundreds of thousands are 
out of employment and suffering for the common necessities of life; and 

Whereas the present class of immigrants is quite detrimental to the best interest of 
the country’s welfare; and 

Whereas a Federal Immigration Commission was created over two years ago to 
investigate the immigration problem; and 
Wliereas our existing utterly inadequate immigration laws have been notoriously 
and scandalously relaxed by the recent Secretary of Commerce and Labor’s adminis¬ 
tration of them; and 

Whereas a Federal Bureau of Information was created in 1907, which has developed 
into an advertising device for the stimulation of foreign immigration: Therefore be it 
Resolved by the Maryland State Council of the Junior Order of American Mechanics 
in annual session at Frostburg, this 21st day of April, 1909, That we urge upon Congress 
the abolition of the Division of Information, the immediate report of Immigration 
Commission, the vigorous enforcement of immigration laws, and the enactment of 
additional legislation, increasing the head tax to $25, fining the steamship companies 
$300 for bringing here any deportable or excludable alien whose condition might 
have been ascertained at the time of sailing, requiring the possession of visible means 
of support, excluding persons unable to read in a European language, as is required in 
South Africa, Australia, and other civilized countries, and such other requirements 
and tests as will substantially exclude the present undesirable alien influx, protect 
the country’s welfare, and preserve its institutions and civilization. 


Resolutions adopted at the meeting of the State Camp of Pennsylvania of the 
Patriotic Order Sons of America, assembled at Hazelton, Pa., August 27, 1908: 

“Wliereas the Patriotic Order Sons of America has labored consistently for the 
enactment of laws relating to the regulating of immigration of aliens to the United 
States, we would therefore record our pleasure at the progress already attained and 
herein evidence our appreciation of the services of the national committee on legis¬ 
lation of our order and pledge them our continued cooperation in their work. 

“While recognizing that at present, owing to the prevailing financial stringency, 
a large number of foreigners are returning to Europe, we should not relax our efforts 
in legislative matters, as a return of prosperity to the country will again witness the 
overwhelming influx of aliens to this land: Therefore be it 
“ Resolved, That we reaffirm our belief in the need of a properly applied educational 
test in the reception of the foreign born to American shores and American citizenship. 

11 Resolved further , That we oppose any change in the steamship air-space provision 
of our present law. and insist that a thorough trial of said provision be made before 
any change be seriously considered by Congress.” 




92 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BlLLb. 


Whereas an organization calling itself the United Hebrew Trades has seen fit to 
denounce the very proper enforcement of the immigration laws at Ellis Island; and 
Whereas the United Hebrew Trades is the only large labor organization in the 
United States that is built upon racial or religious lines: Therefore be it 
j Resolved, That it is the opinion of this league that the immigration policy of this 
Government as ordained by Congress and so efficiently enforced by Commissioner 
Williams should not be abrogated or set aside by any organization in which race or 
religion is made a test for membership. 


Extracts from the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth annual reports of Boston (Mass. 
Associated Charities, pages 7 and 10: 

“In addition to our regular work we petitioned Congress for a modification of the 
present immigration laws. With immigration as unrestrained as at present we can 
have little hope of permanent gain in the struggle of uplifting the poor people of our 
city, since newcomers are always at hand, ignorant of American standards. 

“Nor should it be forgotten that the increase of population has come to a very con¬ 
siderable extent from persons who barely slip through the wide meshes of our very 
inadequate immigration laws. Syrians, Italians, and Russian Jews, a large proportion 
of our immigrants, come here fleeing from intolerable social and industrial conditions, 
badly equipped for the task of life in a new world, ignorant of our speech and customs 
and very liable to fall into difficulties which demand help from others.” 


Whereas a movement has recently begun in Georgia and other Southern States to 
promote immigration to the South, and particularly to Georgia; and 

Whereas as such efforts to stimulate immigration will result in the settlement in 
the South, and in Georgia, of a class of foreigners who are unassimilative elements, 
who may hereafter become citizens of our Republic, thus inevitably tending to modify 
and even transform social and industrial conditions, revolutionizing and transforming 
the laws and form of our Government: Therefore be it 

Resolved by the Georgia Federation of Labor in convention assembled , That we deplore 
and earnestly protest against the admission of such immigrants and against the ill- 
advised efforts of those whose course in soliciting immigrants will, in our opinion, 
result in the flooding of the South and Georgia with a population composed of the 
scum of Europe, a people in nowise in sympathy with the spirit of our institutions and 
form of government, and whose presence in our midst will foment race troubles and 
tend to destroy the cherished ideals of every loyal Southerner, putting us on a plane 
with the Northeast, with its tenements crowded with unassimilative pauper labor. 

Resolved further , That we call upon our governor-elect, the honorable commissioner 
of agriculture, the members of the state senate and house of representatives, and our 
Representatives in the United States Senate and the National House of Representa¬ 
tives, and all other of our public officials who have the interest of the State at heart 
to use all honorable means within their power to discourage the movement to increase 
immigration; and that our Representatives in Congress be requested to support such 
additional legislation as will further restrict immigration, such legislation, in our 
opinion, making for the preservation of liberties and forms of government which our 
forefathers fought and died for. 

We urge that our Representatives in Congress support such legislation as will 
require American consuls to examine the records of intending immigrants, and grant 
certificates to those who are able to read and write their own language, are possessed 
of a sufficient sum of money to support themselves and their families for a period of at 
least six months, and whose moral character and health are such as to entitle them to 
citizenship; that those who reach our shores without such certificates be deported, 
thus barring from our country anarchists, nihilists, paupers, criminals, the illiterate, 
and contract laborers. 

Resolved further, That we regard the unrestricted importation of labor as calculated 
to inevitably cause a deterioration of the standard of American citizenship and as 
inimical to the interests of the members of the Georgia Federation of Labor. 

Resolved further , That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded by our secretary to 
Governor-elect Hoke Smith, the commissioner of agriculture, the Farmers’ Cooper¬ 
ative Union, and our Senators and Representatives in Congress. 

Unanimously adopted July 21, 1907. 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


93 


Be it resolved by the national council, Junior Order of United American Mechanics, that: 

Whereas the coming of people of anarchistic tendencies and others opposed to estab¬ 
lished government, of assisted, illiterate, and pauper immigrants, and of Chinese, 
Japanese, and Korean laborers, endangers the peace and gooa order of every locality 
within the United States, and is a menace to American labor, American civilization, 
and the American standard of living: Therefore be it 

Resolved, That we request all the Members of the Senate and House of Representa¬ 
tives to take such measures as may seem wisest to continue and perfect the policy of 
the United States aiming at the exclusion of all Mongolian laborers; be it further 

Resolved, That we request our Representatives as aforesaid to enact laws to exclude 
the illiterate, degenerate, pauper, and assisted immigrants and to substantially 
reduce the number of immigrants coming to our country from European and other 
countries; be it further 

Resolved, That we protest against special immigration immunity being granted to 
state officials to foster the growth of immigration under the false plea, “scarcity of 
labor;” be it further 

Resolved, That we request our Representatives aforesaid to enact laws to lengthen 
to ten years the period of probationary citizenship and to require all aliens to read, 
speak, and understand the English language before the issuance of final certificate of 
citizenship and conferring upon them the elective franchise; be it further 

Resolved, That we invite the cooperation of all labor organizations, patriotic societies, 
and all patriotic people, and urge them to use all honorable means to secure the votes 
of Senators and Congressmen who will vote for the protection of our country and its 
institutions against the incoming of millions of people from European and Asiatic 
countries by the early enactment of proper immigration, exclusion, and naturalization 
laws; be it further 

Resolved, That the national council secretary forthwith transmit a copy of these 
resolutions to all Members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States, to the officers of the executive and legislative departments of all labor organi¬ 
zations and patriotic societies, and to the recording secretary of each council Junior 
Order United American Mechanics; be it further 

Resolved, That all the officers of the national council, state councils, and councils 
Junior Order United American Mechanics be directed to labor in accordance with 
the views outlined in the foregoing resolution. 

Jesse Taylor. 

Myron G. McClinton. 

Attest: 

Martin M. Woods, 

National Secretary. 


RESOLUTION ON IMMIGRATION. 

The following resolutions were unanimously adopted at the thirty-ninth regular 
and second biennial session of the National Council Junior Order United American 
Mechanics, Detroit, Mich. 

Restriction and naturalization of immigrants. 

Be it resolved by the National Council Junior Order United American Mechanics: 

Whereas it is glaringly evident to the energetic, observing, and patriotic members 
of the Junior Order United American Mechanics, as well as every citizen of the 
United States of America, that the populace of the same are exhibiting a tardiness 
in the campaign for the restriction of immigration as well as the interests of the 
naturalization laws—the safety brake and valve of our citizenship; and 

Whereas the items appearing in the greater part of the daily press are so extremely 
optimistic regarding the decrease of immigration to our shores, having the tendency 
to deceive and promote a feeling of false security amongst us, and those who are also 
striving for the correction of the immigration evils and the extreme jeopardy of our 
American institutions of the future; and 

Whereas recent developments in “the land of the free” exposing to our citizens 
the existence in our midst of organized bands of criminals known as the “Black 
Hand Society,” etc., whose damnable and nefarious practices cause brave hearts to 
stop at the awful dangers confronting the peace and liberty of our citizenship, have 
more forcibly than ever shown the results of lax immigration laws; and 

Whereas the deception of optimistic newspaper editorials minimizing the immigra¬ 
tion dangers may have a tendency to stunt the growth of powerful influences which 



94 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


made themselves felt at the Capitol two years ago in the fight for laws governing 
immigration and calculated for the good of the nation may be the deception and the 
handiwork of the crafty politician, the result of the machinations of a system devel¬ 
oped by those unprincipled and parsimonious enough to traffic in the importation of 
cheap foreign labor, or the result of a criminal or ignorant representatives of the press 
of the country; and 

Whereas certain laws and amendments relating to immigration and naturalization 
and derogatory to our principles of American protection were proposed at the last 
session of Congress; and 

Whereas the laws of the country relating to immigration and naturalization are 
inadequate and incapable for the performance of those restrictions we deem necessary 
for the welfare of the United States of America; and 

Whereas the very bone and sinew of this order—the development and maintenance 
of good citizenship—are threatened for the present and the coming generations: Be it 
Resolved , That the National Council, Junior Order United American Mechanics 
establish a rigid campaign for such laws as are necessary for the correction of these 
ovils, and that a liberal appropriation be provided therefor; and further be it 

Resolved, That the national council commend the work of the secret-service men 
and officials who unearthed the vile organization of foreigners who so harassed the 
citizenship of our country and endangered the very lives thereof; and further be it 
Resolved , That the establishment of an office in Washington during the next ses¬ 
sion of Congress, and the installation therein of an active, capable, and diplomatic 
representative, be instituted by the national legislative committee, under its super¬ 
vision, to further the interests of the legislative principles of the Junior Order of 
United American Mechanics and the integrity of the Government of our Republic ; 
and further be it 

Resolved , That tfie committee on legislation of this body wage energetic and con¬ 
tinuous efforts to have the Immigration Commission, created under section 39 of the 
immigration act of February 20, 1907 (as directed by resolution passed by the United 
States Senate in February, 1909), submit its final report to the next session of the 
Sixty-first Congress, December, 1909; and further be it 

Resolved , That then all efforts should be made bv the legislative committee to labor 
for the enactment of such laws as will properly protect our people against the pres¬ 
ent indiscriminate immigration from all countries, for there is no knowledge of the 
recommendations of said Immigration Commission. 

The Ohio Delegation, 
By John J. Weitzel. 


Whereas the agricultural class of the State of Louisiana, having thoroughly con¬ 
sidered every phase of the problem of immigration, see in the promiscuous importa¬ 
tion of an undesirable class of citizens in our State a deterioration in the standard of 
its farming element: 

Resolved , That we, the Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union of America 
and State of Louisiana, ask our legislators and Senators to express themselves publicly 
on this issue. 

Resolved , That we use our influence with the powers of the State to secure the 
enactment of such laws as will restrict or prohibit this wholesale importation of a 
lower class of immigrants. 

Attest: G. D. Dupree, Chairman. 

Adopted at Louisiana Farmers’ Union state convention, July 31, 1908. 


Your committee, appointed to submit resolutions relative to the questions of immi¬ 
gration referred to in the general master workman’s address, would respectfully submit 
the following: 

We are heartily in accord with the views expressed in the abuses of the immigration 
laws in turning the bureau of the Department of Commerce and Labor into an adver¬ 
tising agency and an employment bureau for obtaining employment for incoming 
immigrants, who are thus being furnished better opportunities for securing employ¬ 
ment than citizens and residents of this country: Therefore be it 
Resolved , That the General Assembly of the Knights of Labor condemns that clause 
of the present law known as “section 40 of the act of Congress approved February 20, 
1907,” entitled “An act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States,” 
and urges upon Congress the immediate repeal of that section of the law, coupled 
with the abolition of the bureau of information and distribution, which is working 
grave injury to labor generally in this country. 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


95 


Resolved, That we urge upon Congress the retention of section 42 of the said act, and 
the adoption of such further restrictions as will prevent this country from being made 
the dumping ground of hordes of foreign immigrants for commercial purposes and to 
the injury of American labor. 

Adopted by the National General Assembly of Knights of Labor, November 9, 1908. 

John W. Hayes, 

General Master Workman. 

I. D. Chamberlain, 

General Secretary- Treasurer. 


Whereas the Republican party platforms of 1896 and 1900 contained planks favor¬ 
ing the further restriction of immigration; and 
Whereas the representatives of that party have been in complete control of the 
Congress of the United States for the past ten years and have failed to carry out these 
pledges: Therefore be it 

Resolved by the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen in seventh biennial convention 
assembled, at Buffalo, N. Y., this 24th day of May, 1905, That we criticise the repre¬ 
sentatives of the Republican party in Congress for their failure to make good their 
pledges with regard to legislation for a further restriction of immigration. 


RESOLUTION OF P. O. 8. OF A. DISTRICT CONVENTION, HELD AT WOOLRICH, PA., NOVEM¬ 
BER 27, 1909. 

Resolved, That we urge the enactment of an immigration law that will properly 
restrict immigration with a per capita tax and examination that will require phys¬ 
ical, mental, and other attainments, and a fine of $500 on transportation companies 
that bring over improper persons, when their unfitness was clearly discernible by 
the agents of the companies transporting them. 


LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE AMERICAN PURITY FEDER¬ 
ATION, AT BURLINGTON, IOWA, OCTOBER 21, 1909. 

Whereas the Immigration Commission reports thousands of undeniably undesirable 
persons being brought to this country every year by the foreign steamships for the 
profit in the traffic: Therefore be it 

Resolved, That the American Purity Federation urges the Congress of the United 
States to increase the steamship head tax, to debar undesirable aliens by the illiter¬ 
acy test, a money requirement and a character certificate, to require young girls to 
be accompanied by or to come to a near relative, and to fine the steamships $300 
for bringing an undesirable alien, when the undesirability could have been ascer¬ 
tained before embarkation; and be it still further 

Resolved, That this federation heartily indorses the efficient enforcement of the 
law inaugurated by Commissioner William Williams at Ellis Island. 


The Republican platform of 1896 said: “For the protection of the equality of 
American citizenship and of wages of our working men against the fatal competition 
of low-priced labor, we demand that the immigration laws be thoroughly enforced 
and so extended as to exclude from entrance to the United States those who can 
neither read nor write.” 

The Republican platform of 1900 said: “In the further interests of American work¬ 
men we favor a more effective restriction of the immigration of cheap labor from for¬ 
eign lands.” 


President McKinley, in his inaugural address, March4, 1897, said: “Illiteracy must 
be banished from the land if we shall attain that destiny as the foremost nation of the 
world,” etc. 

President Roosevelt said in his message to Congress December 3, 1901: “The second 
object of a proper immigration law ought to be to secure by a careful and not merely 
perfunctory educational test some intelligent capacity to appreciate American insti¬ 
tutions and act sanely as American citizens. Both the educational and economic 
test in a wise immigration law should be designed to protect and elevate the great 
body politic and social.” 

Thereupon the committee adjourned. 







96 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday , February 15, 1910. 

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. Benjamin F. 
Howell (chairman) presiding. Others present were Representatives 
Bennet, Burnett, Edwards, Elvins, Gardner, of Massachusetts, 
Goldfogle, Hayes, Kustermann, Moore, of Texas, O’Connell, and 
Sabath. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BENJAMIN S. CABLE, ASSISTANT SECRE¬ 
TARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR, ACCOM¬ 
PANIED BY MR. WILLIAM L. SOLEAU, DISBURSING CLERK; 

MR. CHARLES EARL, SOLICITOR; AND MR. W. F. ANDREWS, OF 

THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, IN CHARGE OF STATISTICS. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cable, the Assistant Secretary, is here to 
represent the Secretary and will answer any questions the committee 
may wish to ask him. Have you looked over this bill, H. R. 13404? 

Mr. Bennet. I might say that Mr. Cable is here in response to an 
invitation from the committee in relation to the charge that the head 
tax is not being collected. You are here in response to the invitation 
sent to Secretary Nagel? 

Secretary Cable. Well, with reference to the head-tax matters. 

Mr. Bennet. Have you brought with you any officers of the 
Department or Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization? 

Mr. Cable. I have brought Mr. Soleau, the disbursing officer; 
Mr. Earl, the solicitor; and Mr. Andrews, of the Bureau of Immigration, 
in charge of statistics in that bureau. 

Mr. Bennet. Do you prefer to make a statement yourself or have 
those officers who have more immediate charge make a statement? 

Mr. Cable. I think, Mr. Bennet, that possibly it would be better 
for you or for the chairman, or members of the committee, to ask 
such questions, and those of us who are competent to answer them 
will do so. I do not understand exactly what the committee wants. 

Mr. Bennet. The general statement has been made that the 
amount of head tax collected during the last few years has not been 
sufficient in each year to meet the expenses of the Bureau of Immi¬ 
gration, both the expenses of the home office and the expenses of 
administering the acts, first, of 1903, and later of 1907. I would 
like to have you give whatever facts there are in connection with 
that. 

Mr. Cable. I should first of all say that that statement is not 
correct. Do you want a statement as to the last three years? I 
have brought those figures with me. 

Mr. Bennet. That is far enough back. 

Mr. Cable. The receipts from head tax for the year 1907 amounted 
to $2,829,783.93. 

Mr. Goldfogle. In what year did you say? 

Mr. Cable. 1907. And the expenses of the Bureau of Immigra¬ 
tion for the same year were in round numbers $2,100,000. 

Mr. Hayes. That is the fiscal year you are speaking of? 

Mr. Cable. Yes, sir. Making the receipts from head tax approxi¬ 
mately $700,000 more than the expenses. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 97 

Mr. Burnett. I did not catch your last statement in regard to 
the disbursements, the expenses. 

Mr. Cable. $2,100,000. For the year 1908 the receipts from the 
head tax were $3,400,000 and the disbursements $2,600,000, making 
$800,000 over the expenditures. Now, in 1909 I am not sure that 
these figures are as accurate, but they are substantially correct; 
the receipts from head tax were $3,200,000 and the expenses were 
$2,500,000. You will see that the receipts from the head tax run 
approximately $700,000 over the expenditures for each of those three 
years. 

Mr. Bennet. Do those figures which you have given, of expendi¬ 
tures, include the expenses of the Immigration Commission for those 
years ? 

Mr. Cable. No, sir; they do not. 

Mr. Bennet. Can you give those in addition? 

Mr. Cable. No : I do not think we have any record of those at all. 

Mr. Bennet. Well, it has been rather widely stated, and it is sub¬ 
stantially accurate, that the expenditures of the Immigration Com¬ 
mission, since its organization, was $657,000. 

Mr. Sabath. That is the report, is it not? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes. 

Mr. Sabath. That must be correct, then. 

Mr. Bennet. And should be deducted from the immigrant fund, 
in addition to the figures given by Mr. Cable. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Now, without considering the expenses of the 
Immigration Commission, as fust now stated by Mr. Bennet, what 
is the amount of the immigrant fund at. the present time? Can 
you tell? 

Mr. Cable. There is no fund ? 

Mr. Sabath. It has been turned over to the general fund of 
last year? 

Mr. Cable. You see, we receive an appropriation of, I think it is, 
$2,400,000, and that appropriation is paid out of what is called the 
“ immigrant fund” in the Treasury; you see we have no control what¬ 
ever over that fund. 

Mr. Sabath. Since last year? 

Mr. Cable. Well, I think it is only for the last year. 

Mr. Bennet. Isn’t it a fact—and, of course, we know it to be a 
fact —that despite the amount collected from the head tax, there was 
a limitation in the statute of 1907, and only two and a half million 
dollars went for the uses of your bureau for all purposes, including the 
expenses of the Immigration Commission? 

Mr. Cable. Yes; there is a provision in the statute that it was not 
to be more than two and a half million dollars. 

Mr. Bennet. In any year? 

Mr. Cable. Yes; I think that is the way it reads. 

Mr. Burnett. And, therefore, your bureau did not receive the total 
amount of the tax collected in any fiscal year since 1907? 

Mr. Cable. That is my understanding, yes, that this money goes 
into the Treasury and we have no control over it whatever; the only 
way in which we are interested is in the fact that our appropriation 
is paid out of this immigrant fund. 

Mr. Burnett. As made up by head-tax receipts? 

Mr. Bennet. In those figures have you included here the expenses 
of buildings ? 

49090—30-7 J 


98 


HEARING ox immigration bills. 


Mr. Cable. Well, I think they are covered by special appropria¬ 
tions. 

Mr. Sabath. But were deducted from the immigrant fund and 
charged to the immigrant fund? 

Mr. Soleau. They were charged against the $2,500,000, every 
time a dollar was taken out of the special appropriation. 

Mr. Bennet. Are those expenses included in the amounts? 

Mr. Soleau. They are not. 

Mr. Bennet. Have you figures showing those amounts? 

Mr. Soleau. Yes, sir; there was transferred from the immigrant 
fund to build an immigrant station at Charleston, S. C., by the act 
of March 4, 1907 (34 Stats., 1415), $70,000. 

Mr. Bennet. That is not exactly the question I was asking; what 
I am asking is the amount actually spent each year. 

Mr. Soleau. Mr. Bennet, I will answer that question. Every 
dollar of this is practically spent, for the purpose of ascertaining 
the amount of money taken from the immigrant fund, for the reason 
that these special appropriations, when taken out never revert 
again to the immigrant fund; any balances left over will go to the 
surplus of the Treasury, and they have not been spent for the stations 
yet. 

Mr. Bennet. You see that that does not get at the fact that I 
wanted. 

Mr. Hayes. What year is he speaking of now? 

Mr. Bennet. I am not limiting him to any year. The fact I 
wanted to get at is this: Of course, I am familiar with the fact that 
commencing in the year 1908 all the appropriations were charged 
up against the immigrant fund; that is a matter of bookkeeping; 
what I want to get at is how much was actually spent each year. 
Now, for instance, Charleston, you have not spent $70,000, or Gal¬ 
veston or New Orleans? 

Mr. Soleau. If you want, actual expenditures, that is something 
else; but I want the committee to understand that that money is 
irrevocable by reason of these special acts taking away from the 
immigrant fund. 

Mr. O’Connell. It is not spent, is it? 

Mr. Soleau. It is not spent in the sense of paying it out, but it is 
a created liability; it will be spent as fast as the department can make 
the proper contracts for its expenditure. 

Mr. O’Connell. And that money will go into permanent improve¬ 
ments? 

Mr. Soleau. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bennet. It lays there in the Treasury subject to draft? 

Mr. Soleau. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hayes. Then it should be charged up to the fund, should it 
not? 

Mr. Soleau. It has already been charged up. 

Mr. Bennet. Do those figures given by Mr. Cable include, outside 
of immigrant stations and the Immigration Commission, the money 
actually spent each year? 

Mr. Soleau. No, sir; they do not include any permanent improve¬ 
ments; these are the current operating expenses that Mr. Cable gave 
a statement of. 

Mr. Bennet. Let us take the condition of the buildings each 
year, commencing with the fiscal year 1906, if you can. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


99 


Mr. Soleau. There have been $418,000, in round numbers, spent 
on account of the immigrant station at Ellis Island, and for build¬ 
ings— 

Mr. Bennet. What fiscal year? 

Mr. Soleau. That $418,000 was appropriated by the act of Feb¬ 
ruary 14, 1908 (35 Stats., p. 20), and that money has all been spent. 
In addition to that there has been an expenditure of $115,000 at the 
same station under the act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stats., p. 508), all 
spent. 

Mr. Burnett. How much? 

Mr. Soleau. One hundred and fifteen thousand dollars, in round 
numbers. In other words, all the money that has been appropriated. 
Now, the appropriations for the other immigrant stations, Charles¬ 
ton, $70,000; Galveston, $70,000; New Orleans, $70,000; Philadel¬ 
phia, $250,000, has not been spent; the funds are practically intact; 
there have been a few dollars spent in traveling expenses to make 
surveys with the view of drawing plans for those stations. 

Mr. Bennet. Then, has there been any year in the last three fiscal 
years—I suppose that is as far as it is necessary to go back—in which 
the administration of the immigration law and the amount actually 
expended for buildings has equaled or exceeded the amount of the 
head tax paid into the Treasury of the United States? 

Mr. Soleau. No; not until the beginning of the fiscal year 1909 
was there any trouble in the fund; we were approaching trouble all 
the time, but did not meet it until then. 

Mr. O’Connell. What do you mean by trouble? 

Mr. Soleau. Why, that the fund would be exhausted. If you 
will let me put into your record here a general statement I think it 
will assist you in getting at this situation. 

Mr. Bennet. I do not want to confuse the fund with the receipts; 
the fund consisted of two and a half million dollars, while the receipts 
included all the moneys received. 

Mr. Soleau. If you will permit me to begin with July 1, 1907, and 
bring it down to the beginning of the fiscal year 1909, I think I will 
shed some light on this subject, if it is agreeable to the committee. 

Mr. Burnett. You mean the fiscal year ending June 30, 1909, 
when you speak of the fiscal year 1909? 

Mr. Soleau. I said the beginning. The gentleman seems to be 
somewhat confused in regard to these special appropriations; I will 
admit that they are complex on account of the method of legislating 
every year. For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1907, the total 
amount to the credit of the appropriation for expenses of regulating 
immigration, was $1,815,983.19. 

Mr. Hayes. What year was that; July 1, 1907? 

Mr. Soleau. That is what we started off with that year. 

Mr. Burnett. How much? 

Mr. Soleau. $1,815,983.19. Under section 1, of the act of 
February 20, 1907, $2,500,000; of the head tax was added to that 
fund, making a total to begin business with on that date, on July 1, 
1907, of $4,556,049.79. 

Mr. Hayes. That is July 1, 1907? 

Mr. Soleau. Yes; that "is what we started off with that first year; 
that is the immigrant fund available for regulating expenses during 
that year. 

Mr. Bennet. During that year? 


100 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Soleau. Yes, sir. Now, during the year there was charged 
to it, that is the fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, bear in mind, the 
general running expenses, of $2,145,846.99; the figures that Mr. 
Cable has just furnished are the disbursements by me. There was 
transferred from the immigrant fund, on account of the immigrant 
station at Charleston, S. C., the sum of $70,000; transferred from 
the immigrant fund on account of immigrant station at Galveston, 
Tex., $70,000; transferred from the immigrant fund on account of the 
immigrant station at New Orleans, La., $70,000; transferred from 
the immigrant fund on account of salaries, Bureau of Immigration 
and Naturalization, 1908, $91,600. 

Mr. Sabath. What was that for? 

Mr. Soleau. There is an act of Congress which says there shall be 
no persons employed in the District of Columbia unless their salaries 
are specifically provided for, and to overcome that law Congress every 
year makes, in detail, an appropriation for so many clerks under the 
commissioner-general and the assistant commissioner-general, to 
be employed here in Washington. Transferred from the immigrant 
fund on account of the enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion act, 
$500,000; transferred from the immigrant fund on account of immi¬ 
grant station, Ellis Island, New York, $418,000; transferred from the 
immigrant fund on account of Public Health and Marine-Hospital 
Service, 1908, $150,000; transferred from the immigrant fund on 
account of immigrant station at Philadelphia, Pa., $250,000; trans¬ 
ferred from the immigrant fund on account of immigrant station, 
Ellis Island, New York, an additional sum of $115,000. That, taken 
together with the expenses which could not be charged to any par¬ 
ticular year, which were coming in for settlement during that year— 
there was in one case disbursements by other officers amounting to 
$25,487.31, and miscellaneous treasury settlements, $23,521.31, and 
$75,677.14 advanced during that year to Immigration Commission, 
making a total charge against the fund for that year of $4,005,132.75, 
leaving a balance to be transferred under section 1 of the immigrant 
act of February 20, 1907, of $550,917.04. During the fiscal year 1909 
we met with trouble on account of the reduced immigration, and at 
many times there was no balance in this fund at all, and the best 
statistics that we could put together indicated that there would be a 
large deficiency by reason of the falling off in the head tax, due to the 
falling off of immigration. 

Mr. Hayes. Which you estimated to be about $600,000? 

Mr. Soleau. Yes, sir; and I am still proud of the estimate. Now, 
we add to the $550,917.04, $2,500,000, which was added, providing 
the head tax reached that sum during this fiscal year, pursuant to 
section 1 of the act of February 20, 1907, making a total to start the 
year with of $3,050,917.04. 

Mr. Burnett. To start what year? 

Mr. Soleau. The fiscal year ending June 30, 1909. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That amount was in the Treasury? 

Mr. Soleau. No, sir; it was not then in the Treasury, but the 
amount reached the Treasury from head tax before the fiscal year 
was over; it was along in the spring of 1909 before that money was 
actually in the Treasury. My accounts showed at one time a balance 
due me from the Government as high as $500,000 because of an 
arrangement with the Secretary of the Treasury that we might use 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


101 


temporarily other moneys until we could ask Congress for relief or 
the head tax would make the specified amount. Now, the special 
charges against that fund during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1909, 
were: Pay of assistant attorneys, and so forth, in naturalization 
cases under the Department of Justice, $150,000; salaries, Bureau of 
Immigration and Naturalization, 1909, $64,940; Public Health and 
Marine-Hospital Service, $200,000; immigrant station, Ellis Island, 
New York, for dredging, $65,000; ferry steamer, San Francisco, Cal., 
$115,000; boarding cutter, San Francisco, Cal., $25,000; and en¬ 
forcement of the Chinese-exclusion act, $500,000, making a total 
charge of $1,119,940 against the fund for that year, and leaving a 
balance for the expenses of regulating immigration during the vear 
of $1,930,977.04. * 

Mr. Kustermann. Have you figures there as to deportation? How 
much did the deportation of immigrants cost during the year? 

Mr. Soleau. We have no account along those lines. 

Mr. Kustermann. I understood there was about $300,000 of cost 
attached to that. 

Mr. Soleau. Mr. Cable has directed that a liability account shall 
be established in the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization with 
a view of showing every year all of these things. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Where would the items appear that make up 
the expenses for deporting persons from the United States? 

Mr. Soleau. They appear in this expenditure of $2,145,846.99. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Is there no record showing the details of that 
expenditure ? 

Mr. Soleau. Not with such fineness; no. 

Mr. Hayes. Then, Mr. Soleau, for the fiscal year 1909, from the 
figures you have just given us, what does the actual balance sheet 
show? Was there a deficit? 

Mr. Soleau. There was a deficit; the balance sheet of to-day 
shows a deficit of $615,000 for that year, brought about by the differ¬ 
ence between the balance brought over from the appropriation and 
the total expenses for that year, which were the salaries in the bureau, 
because I have taken them out in this statement, and the expenses of 
enforcing the Chinese exclusion act, because I have taken them out in 
this statement, of $1,994,507.55, leaving approximately $200,000 for 
us, and the balance of the deficiency was made up by the Immigration 
Commission. 

Mr. Bennet. Have you had at your disposition in the fiscal years 
1908 and 1909 the total amount collected from the immigrants at $4 
per head? What would your balance sheet have shown on the 1st of 
July, 1909? 

Mr. Soleau. If we could have used the fund without drafts from 
the Immigration Commission, but including all the drafts for special 
appropriations, we would have come out about $54,000 short. 

Mr. Bennet. You do not catch my question; you are basing your 
estimate right along on the- 

Mr. Soleau. On what we had. 

Mr. Bennet. Yes; on the limited fund of two and a half million 
dollars each year, aren’t you? 

Mr. Burnett. Suppose you had received the amount collected 
from immigrants in addition to the two and a half million dollars? 



102 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Soleau. I haven’t that in detail, but I can give it to you from 
a mental calculation; in round numbers we would have had $2,200,000 
left over; but then we would have had to take out of these those 
specials. 

Mr. Cable. I understand what you want is the total of the head-tax 
receipts and then the total of all disbursements? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes. 

Mr. Hayes. We want everything; we want the fines, we want the 
amount you got in for naturalization fees. 

Mr. Cable. That is under a separate appropriation. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Soleau, couldn’t we get these figures accurately 
by your sending them to us in the form we ask? 

Mr. Soleau. Well, we can put it in, of course; but I can put it in 
now for you within a few minutes. 

Mr. Hayes. But it is taking our time, and you could prepare a 
detailed statement for the last four years, showing the exact amount 
collected from the head tax and all the expenses, incidental and 
otherwise, of the administration of the immigration law. 

Mr. Soleau. Well, we will give you an analysis of the fund. 

Mr. Burnett. No, everything you find we want. 

Mr. Sabath. The things we want are the gross receipts and the 
gross expenditures. 

Mr. Soleau. In other words, Mr. Bennet, you want the gross 
receipts from the head tax without any regard as to what it was 
provided to settle for and you want to take from it all the expendi¬ 
tures that were chargeable to the head tax for maintaining the 
immigration service; is that it? 

Mr. Bennet. No. We want all the head tax; we want all the 
money from the privileges, we want all the money paid by steamship 
companies for meals, because that is charged to the fund when you 
pay it out; we want all the money paid by steamship companies for 
hospital and other accommodations, because that is charged against 
the fund and reimbursed. 

Mr. Sabath. And all the fines. 

Mr. Bennet. We want the amount of fines; in other words, every¬ 
thing from which the immigrant fund is made up. We want you to 
put all those figures in, and then, on the other side of the ledger of 
your balance sheet, we want all the expenses of regulating immigra¬ 
tion, all the expenses of buildings, permanent improvements, the 
amount drawn by the Immigration Commission; we want them all; 
anything else that may go to make up the account; the Washington 
office, and anything else that ought to be charged. 

Mr. Cable. 1 do not know where he will get the figures as to the 
Immigration Commission. You haven’t those, have you, Mr. Bennet ? 

Mr. Bennet. I will give you those. 

Mr. Kustermann. When is this to start, 1907? 

Mr. Hayes. The 1st of July, 1907. 

Mr. Kustermann. When did the Immigration Commission first 
commence to cause expense? 

Mr. Sabath. July 1, 1907. 

Mr. Burnett. Can you start the statement with July, 1906, and 
bring in your receipts and disbursements for those three years? 

Mr. Soleau. We can do that. 


HEARING OK IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


103 


Mr. Bennet. Of course, that will cover tlie $2 year, the year in 
which the head tax was but $2. 

Mr. Soleau. I was going to say you are going to compare apples 
and pears. 

Mr. Hayes. Well, we want it in that way. You have stated that 
the deficit for 1908 was $615,000; have you any deficit- 

Mr. Soleau. No, sir; I didn’t state that; pardon me for differing 
with you; it was the year 1909 that I stated there was a deficit of 
$615,000. 

Mr. Hayes. Can you give us the next year? 

Mr. Soleau. The year preceding 1909? 

Mr. Hayes. No; after. 

Mr. Soleau. The current year, the year we are in, 1910? 

Mr. Hayes. No; the preceding year, 1908. 

Mr. Soleau. There was no deficit; in the figures furnished I 
showed that we carried over $550,917.04; there was no deficit. 

Mr. Cable. As I understand it these deficits are caused by the out¬ 
standing liabilities for work not yet completed. 

Mr. Soleau. Well, if this young man may be permitted to raise 
his pen, I can make a statement that may be of interest to the com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr. Gardner. I object to that. 

Mr. Goldfogle. W T hat objection can there be to that? I will ask 
unanimous consent that the gentleman may be permitted to make a 
statement without having it go into the record. 

Mr. Gardner. I object. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What is your reason? Certainly there can be no 
objection to that. 

Mr. Kustermann. Well, I move that the gentleman be allowed 
to make a statement that need not go into the record. 

Mr. Goldfogle. No; that would not be right. 

Mr. Gardner. The gentleman has asked me to give my reason. 
I will say that my reason for objecting is because there is a repre¬ 
sentative here of one of the Associated Press bureaus. 

The Chairman. Then you had better not make the statement, if it 
is not to go into the record. 

Mr. Kustermann. We ought to get all the information possible. 

The Chairman. I think you understand what we want; we want 
the entire receipts and we want the entire disbursements on account 
of the immigrant fund. 

Mr. Soleau. Yes; in a different form than it has been given. 

Mr. Burnett. How much was on hand in the immigrant fund 
when the increased head tax began—the total amount? 

Mr. Soleau. The increased head tax began from July 1 , 1907; I 
believe that is right, Mr. Bennet, isn’t it? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes. 

Mr. Soleau. We had on hand at that date $1,815,983.19 to start 
it with. 

Mr. Burnett. Now, how much is now to the credit of the immi¬ 
grant fund? 

Mr. Soleau. Nothing. 

Mr. Sabath. Why? 

Mr. Soleau. For the reason that all the money appropriated by 
Congress, or that Congress has permitted to be taken away from the 



104 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


head-tax receipts each year and added to the fund each year, amount¬ 
ing to $2,500,000, was not sufficient to pay the expenses of regulating 
immigration, enforcing Chinese exclusion; amounts appropriated for 
buildings and improvements, and to enforce the naturalization laws 
in one year. 

Mr. Sabath. I didn’t wish to know that. It is because you have 
not received the entire amount which was received from the head 
tax, and you only base your figures on the amount that was allowed 
the department, namely, two and a half million dollars, and the 
balance has been drawn "from the general fund that is in the Treasury; 
that is true, is it not? 

Mr. Soleau. I am not prepared just now to say that that is abso¬ 
lutely true; I will say that that is true in the event the taking out of 
all these special appropriations for other purposes will not exceed 
the difference; then you are right. 

Mr. Sabath. You now base your figures on the two and a half 
million dollars allowed by the act of 1907? 

Mr. Soleau. No, sir; in answering your question I took into con¬ 
sideration the whole receipts. 

Mr. Sabath. The whole receipts for three years would give about 
$9,500,000? 

Mr. Soleau. Correct. 

Mr. Bennet. The expenses you have given about $7,300,000? 

Mr. Soleau. That is on operation absolutely, but I have not 
taken into consideration these specials. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Let me ask you, to get this clear, suppose you 
state in your own way how you account for this difference of two 
million and odd dollars. 

Mr. Bennet. He is going to give us that in a statement. 

Mr. Gardner. My reason for wanting everything to go into the 
record was because I did not care to have anything remembered by 
hearsay, because you know and I know that you may remember 
one way and I will remember another way. I did not object to 
anything that Mr. Soleau might want to state as a matter for the 
record. 

Mr. Goldfogle. True; and his answer to my question would be a 
part of the record. 

Mr. Soleau. So far as making a statement is concerned it would 
only have an indirect bearing on the causes for these special appro¬ 
priations being taken from the immigrant fund, and that is all, and as 
it relates to the policy of a legislative body I do not care to make the 
statement for publication. 

Mr. Hayes. I would like to ask you to state, if you can do so, what 
the balance was on the 1st of July last, when the fund was finally 
abolished ? 

Mr. Soleau. Now, on the 1st of July last, as I said, we had a defi¬ 
ciency of over $600,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1909; there 
was no balance; we were $600,000 on the wrong side of the ledger. 

Mr. Bennet. That is, of course, based on your fund of two and a 
half million dollars? 

Mr. Soleau. Yes; absolutely. 

Mr. Bennet. I would like to ask Mr. Cable or Mr. Earl, or both, 
as to a statement which has been made here; the statement made here 
was that there were administrative regulations, required by the 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


105 


statutes, of course, which had the effect of so reducing the head tax 
that 500,000 aliens had come in, as I understood, since the 1st of July, 
1907, without paying the head tax. Is that an accurate statement of 
fact? 

Mr. Cable. Well, I should say that that was very inaccurate; we 
can get the figures on that; there are undoubtedly a number of aliens 
that come in every year without paying the head tax under the regu¬ 
lations provided for by law. 

Mr. Kustermann. That is, they come in a second time? 

Mr. Cable. Yes; aliens who have had a residence of one year in 
some part of North America or Cuba; for instance, Mexico, Canada, 
and Cuba are the only ones I can think of now. If they had a year’s 
residence in any one of those countries they can come in without 
paying the head tax; the law so provides. 

Mr. Burnett. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, too? 

Mr. Cable. Yes. The regulations of the department, under rule 2, 
I think it is, or rule 1, provide that where an alien has acquired a 
domicile in the United States and goes to Canada and Mexico and 
remains less than a year and reenters the United States that he is 
not charged a head tax. 

Mr. Hayes. Where do you get the authority of law for that? 

Mr. Cable. I was asking our solicitor about it; it seemed rather 
doubtful to me. 

Mr. Hayes. I do not find any law that warrants it. 

Mr. Cable. I did not either, and I asked the solicitor why, and he 
gave me an explanation, and I think he would be glad to give it to 
you gentlemen now. I made the same inquiry you are making now; 
I did not understand it. 

Mr. Earl. Well, gentlemen, this regulation was framed with a view 
tocarrrying out the exemption contained in section 1 of the immi¬ 
gration act. 

Mr. Hayes. That is specific, is it not? 

Mr. Earl. Yes; that is specific, but representations were, as I 
understand it, made to the State Department by Canada, particu¬ 
larly, that this rule, as originally adopted, which was in literal con¬ 
formity, as I recall it, with the act, was creating a great deal of fric¬ 
tion on the Canadian border, and the matter was taken up between 
the Department of Commerce and Labor and the Department of 
State; and Mr. Root, who was present before the Committee on 
Immigration when this exemption was made in the present act, in 
the act of 1907, reported what he understood to be the purpose of 
the committee in making a certain amendment in that respect, 
and he said that in his opinion, as a matter of law, the exemption 
was clearly intended to apply to these cases; that is, citizens of Canada 
who had resided—whose absence from Canada was merely temporary. 
There were two classes; first, citizens of Canada who had taken up 
a residence in the United States and had gone back to Canada for 
a few months and returned again to their domicile in the United 
States, and, in the second place, residents of Canada who were bona 
fide residents of that country, but who in the previous year had tempo¬ 
rarily departed for a week or two. And it was after this conference 
between the Department of Commerce and Labor and the State 
Department that the rule was amended and framed as it now stands. 

Mr. Hayes. You are a lawyer, are you? 


10G 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Earl. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hayes. You do not state, and you would not state, I presume, 
that there is any authority in the law at all for that construction ? 

Mr. Earl. Well, I think there is, Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. IIayes. I would like to have you point it out. 

Mr. Earl. I have written an opinion on the subject. 

Mr. IIayes. The law is very specific and positive, no exceptions 
are made. 

Mr. Goldfogle. In regard to what? 

Mr. Burnett. Is it not right in the face of the law ? 

Mr. Sabath. Won’t you please give him a chance to make his 
answer. 

Mr. Earl. Mr. Chairman, I have stated my view of the law in an 
opinion that I took a great deal of pains with; it is a long while ago 
and I do not remember now all the reasons which led me finally to the 
conclusion that I reached. I have given, in a general way, the occa¬ 
sion which led to the taking up of this question. 

Mr. Hayes. As a lawyer you would practically agree with me 
that in such a case the thing to do would be to come to Congress and 
have an amendment passed so as to have it in the law? 

Mr. Earl. As a lawyer I reached a different conclusion. 

Mr. Hayes. Will you please send me a copy of your opinion? 

Mr. Earl. I will be very glad to do that. 

Mr. Gardner. Didn’t we consider that in connection with a 
street railroad over the Rio Grande where people paid 5 cents to go 
over and the question was whether they had to pay $2 head tax 
as well ? 

Mr. Earl. I am not sure whether that came up at that time. 

Mr. Gardner. I think that is the same question; when a pas¬ 
senger from Mexico crossed the Rio Grande on the street railroad, 
paying either 5 or 10 cents, and desired to return, the question was 
whether they had to spend $2 in addition to their railroad fare. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Each time they made the trip? Why, under the 
strict construction of the law they wouldn’t have to pay that $2, 
would they? 

Mr. Bennet. Surely. 

Mr. Gardner. I remember that Mr. Slayden brought up the case 
of an Englishman residing in Texas who used to go backward and 
forward. 

Mr. Sabath. Have you read section 1 ? 

Mr. IIayes. I have read it. 

Mr. Sabath. That shows that. 

Mr. Bennet. Senator Root, at that time Secretary of State, did 
not come before the full committee; he came before a subcommittee 
of which Mr. Gardner was chairman, Mr. Burnett was a member, 
Mr. Ellerbe was a member, and I was a member, and I think Mr. 
Moore was also a member. 

Mr. Earl. I didn’t know that; I understood that he appeared 
before the full committee. 

Mr. Burnett. I do not recall that any such thing as that occurred 
on the part of the subcommittee, that that should be the construction. 

Mr. Bennet. We sent for him and asked him what should be done. 

Mr. Earl. It was my understanding that he took up the matter 
with you gentlemen. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 107 

Mr. Sabath. Have you a record of what took place between the 
Secretary of State and your office? 

Mr. Earl. I presume it is in the department. 

Mr. Sabath. Well, I presume we can have it, can we not? 

Mr. Earl. Well, I presume so. 

Mr. Hayes. What would be the object of that? 

Mr. Sabath. To show what the case was, who requested the mat¬ 
ter, how it came about, and what was done. Y\ r e can get the entire 
information, because Mr. Gardner, Mr. Bennet, and Mr. Burnett do 
not clearly remember what transpired at that time. 

Mr. Gardner. I remember the fact that Secretary Root appeared, 
but I do not remember the particulars. 

Mr. Sabath. Perhaps that information would enlighten the 
committee. 

Mr. Bennet. The regulation which you have referred to affects 
aliens residing in Cuba, Mexico, Newfoundland, and Canada; do you 
know of any regulation diminishing in any way the efficacy of the 
collection of the revenues so far as the trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific 
traffic is concerned? 

Mr. Earl. No. You mean otherwise than as provided by law? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes. 

Mr. Earl. No, I do not; I do not, of course, concede that this 
regulation in any way violates the law. 

Mr. Bennet. I beg your pardon for having put the question in 
that form. However, you drew the regulation? 

Mr. Earl. I drew that one; yes. 

Mr. Hayes. What regulation do you refer to? 

Mr. Earl. Regulation No. 2. 

Mr. Hayes. You refer to transients coming from abroad? 

Mr. Earl. I referred generally to rule 2. 

Mr. Burnett. On what page is it? 

Mr. Earl. Page 27, rules 1 and 2. 

Mr. Hayes. “F” under rule 2 is what I refer to. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You have reference to aliens who enter merely for 
the purpose of transit ? 

Mr. Hayes. Aliens in transit through the United States. 

Mr. Kustermann. A person coming here the second time, is he 
charged a head tax ? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. 

Mr. Hayes. Is that so? Since when? 

Mr. Soleau. Always. 

Mr. Hayes. Isn’t it true that on the 3d day of December, 1908, 
the Secretary rendered a decision which runs about like this: 

That aliens who have established a domicile are not aliens within the meaning of 
the immigration law, and therefore can not be held under any of its provisions once 
the fact of this domicile is established. 

When aliens return from abroad, after once establishing a domicile, 
■they are treated like natives or naturalized citizens? 

Mr. Cable. Is that an opinion of the solicitor? 

Mr. Hayes. No, by Secretary Straus; it is dated December 3, 1908 

Mr. Cable. Mr. Earl, you can probably explain that. You were 
here and I was not. 

Mr. Sabath. That is based on section 1, is it not? 

Mr. Hayes. There is nothing in section 1 like that. 


108 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Sabath. It says: 

That the said tax shall not be levied upon aliens who shall enter the United States 
after an uninterrupted residence of at least one year, immediately preceding such 
entrance, in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Cuba, or the 
Republic of Mexico— 

And why should not it also apply to people of the United States? 

Mr. Hayes. Well, it does not; that is the point. 

Mr. Sabath. If we make that provision for those that reside at 
least one year in these countries why should not it also apply when 
they have established their domicile in this country? 

Mr. Earl. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, in that connection 
that Secretary Straus has ruled, and the department has ruled occa¬ 
sionally in specific cases, that an alien who has established a bona fide, 
permanent domicile in the Unitea States is not an alien within the 
meaning of the immigration act, and wherever that ruling has been 
made it has only been made in specific cases, in individual cases, and 
under the circumstances of each individual case as it arose; it has 
been based upon what has been considered by the department the 
very decided weight of judicial authority to that effect. Now, while 
aliens have been admitted—that is to say, persons have been ad¬ 
mitted—on the ground that they had acquired a permanent domicile 
in the United States, so far as I know the question of whether or not 
the head tax should be collected on account of such persons has never 
arisen; at least it has not been presented to me. I should say offhand 
that the head tax had always been collected on account of those 
aliens, on account of those persons. Possibly it may have been re¬ 
funded in a few rare instances; as to that I am not advised. 

Mr. Hayes. You think, then, that the decision which I have quoted 
from has not become a rule of the department? 

Mr. Earl. It has become a rule of the department to this extent, 
that wherever in an individual case, under all the circumstances, the 
Secretary is satisfied that the given alien is a bona fide citizen—I mean 
a bona fide resident—and that he has never abandoned the domicile 
acquired in this country, and his absence abroad has been tempo¬ 
rary, with the intention of returning, he may, in instances, have let 
that person in. 

Mr. Cable. Those are very rare instances. 

Mr. Earl. The matter comes up in this w r ay: Whether a person 
has acquired a domicile in the United States or not is a question of fact, 
and the Secretary has to look into the facts of the case in order to sat¬ 
isfy himself whether the domicile has been acquired, and if it has been 
acquired whether or not it has been abandoned, and when, as I say, 
he is perfectly satisfied as to the merits of a case, that the domicile 
has been acquired and that it has not been abandoned and that the 
absence was only temporary, he has concluded at times that that per¬ 
son was not an alien within the meaning of the immigration law and 
was entitled to admission. 

Mr. Goldfogle. May I read this from decision 117 by Secretary 
Straus ? I am now reading from a decision rendered by the Secretary, 
dated December 1, 1908, entitled “Decision No. 117,” and the part I 
wish to read is as follows: 

It having been repeatedly held by the courts that an alien who has in good faith 
acquired a permanent domicile in the United States is not precluded by anything 
in the immigration laws from returning thereto after a temporary absence abroad, 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


109 


the department hag, of course, governed itself accordingly, reserving, however, the 
necessary discretion and authority to determine in particular cases as they rise 
whether an alien seeking admission to the United States on the ground of former 
domicile shall be permitted to enter. To entitle an alien to admission on said ground 
it must appear that the domicile acquired was a permanent one and has not been 
abandoned. This is a question of fact to be determined finally by the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor. 

That has been uniformly followed by the department? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. 

Mr. Burnett. That does not determine the question as to the pay¬ 
ment of the head tax? 

Mr. Hayes. I have been advised—and some of you gentlemen can 
say whether I am correctly advised or not—that wdiere an alien 
establishes by facts, or satisfies the immigration officers or the depart¬ 
ment in the case of an appeal, that he has a bona fide residence in the 
United States and is going to Europe for a temporary purpose, that 
when he returns the head tax is not collected, but he is treated like a 
citizen of the United States ? 

Mr. Earl. I would say this, that the instances in which the depart¬ 
ment has admitted a person on the ground of prior domicile have 
been very few; possibly in the course of a year not more than a dozen 
or two dozen persons have been admitted on that ground. 

Mr. Hayes. Then you would say that it is not the uniform practice? 

Mr. Earl. By no means. 

Mr. Burnett. You grant them admission, but they must pay the 
head tax? 

Mr. Earl. So far as the head tax is concerned, I should say that the 
head tax is always collected. I am not sure but that in a few instances 
it may have been refunded; but that is a matter that would never 
come to my notice. 

Mr. Bennet. Is it not a fact that that decision was based on the 
case of Buchsbaum, 141 Federal Reporter, affirmed in 152 Federal 
Reporter, page 346; the case of the United States v. Aultman Com¬ 
pany, 143 Federal Reporter, 922, affirmed in 148 Federal Reporter, 
1022; United States v. Nakashima, 160 Federal Reporter, 842, and 
that there are conflicting decisions commencing with Taylor v. United 
States, 152 Federal Reporter- 

Mr. Earl. Which was overruled by the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Bennet. And where the court seems rather to confirm the 
preceding one? And I understand that on the direct question of 
having acquired a domicile there has not been any decision by the 
United States Supreme Court. 

Mr. Earl. Yes, sir; that is true. 

Mr. Hayes. Perhaps some of you gentlemen can enlighten me on 
another question. I noticed, as 1 recall, that last year something like 
between 130,000 and 140,000 aliens must have entered the United 
States who did not pay any head tax. How did such a discrepancy 
as that occur ? 

Mr. Earl. Of course, as solicitor I wouldn't be able to answer that 
question; so far as I know the head tax is collected of all aliens. 

Mr. Hayes. And in the year during which there was the greatest 
immigration there must have been over 400,000 who did not pay the 
head tax. 

Mr. Bennet. I had that same impression until I spent a day in the 
Treasury Department and found out about it. 



110 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Hayes. I was referring to the figures as given by the commis¬ 
sioner-general. 

Mr. Bennet. The figures given by the commissioner-general are 
not based on the collection of the entire head tax at all; they are 
based on different periods—partly on monthly reports, partly on 
quarterly reports—and one wishing to get these figures correctly must 
go to the Treasury, sit down in a back room, and go over them as I did. 

Mr. Hayes. Can not some of these gentlemen send us those figures? 

Mr. Bennet. You can get them at the Treasury Department. 

Mr. Hayes. I would like to get those figures. 

Mr. Burnett. Doesn’t the Commissioner-General keep a record of 
all the receipts of head tax? 

Mr. Bennet. They go to the Treasury. 

Mr. Burnett. Doesn’t he keep a record of the receipts? Doesn’t 
he get that information? 

Mr. Cable. No, sir; the customs officers collect that tax. 

Mr. Hayes. Would it be possible to get those figures? 

Mr. Soleau. They are obtainable. 

Mr. Hayes. Would it be possible for you to get them for us with¬ 
out too much trouble? 

Mr. Sabath. It would be much easier for the Treasury Department 
to furnish them. 

Mr. Bennet. I move that the Secretary of the Treasury be re¬ 
quested to give us the figures showing the collection of the head tax 
during each year since June 30, 1906. 

(Said motion was seconded by Mr. Hayes, and the question being 
taken the motion was agreed to. 

It was also moved and seconded that the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor be requested to furnish the committee the aggregate, in 
each of those years, of the aliens admitted into the United States 
and taxable under the law. 

The question was taken and agreed to.) 

Mr. Burnett. That might be a question of construction, as to 
whether they were taxable. 

Mr. Hayes. Let him give us the number of aliens coming in. 

Mr. Goldfogle. And the number upon which the head tax was 
paid. 

Mr. Bennet. And, separately, the aliens who are exempt under 
express provisions of the law and those who were exempted, if you 
can get it, under the regulations of the department. So far as you 
are aware, is there any regulation, which is new since the 1st of July, 
1907, which is not based expressly on statutes, with the exception 
of that one based on Secretary Root’s construction of the statute? 

Mr. Earl. No; every regulation is based on statute; from time to 
time it is necessary to amend them, as we discover omissions, but every 
regulation is made in conformity with statute, to the best of our ability. 

Mr. Bennet. Well, on statutes and on the decisions of the circuit 
court of appeals, with the single exception of the one that is based 
on the construction Secretary Root placed on section 1 ? 

Mr. Earl. I do not quite catch the first part of your question. 

Mr. Bennet. Well, you drew the regulations? 

Mr. Earl. Well, I did, in a way; they were originally prepared by 
the Bureau of Immigration and they were referred to me for examina¬ 
tion before they were printed, and I went over them with as much 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. Ill 

care as I could, and some of them I redrafted altogether, and some of 
them I let stand as they were. 

Mr. Bennet. So far as any regulations affecting the head tax are 
concerned, do you recall any regulation that is not based either on the 
express words of the statutes, upon the decisions of the circuit courts 
of appeal, or upon the construction which Secretary Root placed upon 
the head tax in that one instance. 

Mr. Earl. I will answer first “No,” and 1 will add, however, that 
I do not recall any regulation which is based on the decision of the 
circuit court of appeals; there is no regulation that I am aware of 
exempting aliens who have acquired a domicile in the United States 
from the payment of the head tax, and, furthermore, I ought to say 
that I do not want to shift the responsibility to Secretary Root for 
the particular regulation in connection with the payment of the head 
tax on account of aliens coming in from Canada and Mexico; I sup¬ 
pose I am responsible for that; it was in consequence of my opinion 
that that regulation was adopted. 

Mr. Bennet. And vou are going to send us your opinion ? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. 

(At 12 o'clock m. the committee adjourned.) 


House of Representatives, 

Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

Washington, D. C., February 22, 1910. 

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. Benjamin F. 
Howell in the chair. Others present were: Representatives Hayes, 
O’Connell, Goldfogle, Edwards, Burnett, Sabath, Bennet, Johnson, 
Elvins, and Kustermann. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Hayes. Let us hear what Mr. Holder has to say. 

The Chairman. Very well; Mr. Holder, we will hear you. 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR E. HOLDER, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE 
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, 

Mr. Holder. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
suppose, for the sake of the record, I had better tell you whom I repre¬ 
sent. I am representing in particular the American Federation of 
Labor this morning and its constituent organizations, and incident¬ 
ally some of the largest farmers’ unions of the United States. 

I am not going to burden you with any personal statement, unless I 
am questioned. I am simply going to ask you to permit me to put into 
the record the expression of the men who represent our general indus¬ 
trial movement in field and in factory. I believe that by following 
that method it will at least convince you of this fact, if of no other, 
that it is the true sentiment of the men who represent others in the 
general field of labor. It will also be to your advantage, as a matter 
of conciseness, for, while these papers look bulky, they are written 
loosely, and it will not be so voluminous when it is in print. 

I want to go back a space of five years in order to record the posi¬ 
tion of organized labor on this great question of immigration, without 



112 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


unduly burdening you with a great deal of ancient history. At the 
Pittsburg convention of the American Federation of Labor, held in 

1905, this resolution, or this statement, was indorsed: 

A further check should be put upon assisted immigration. The law now permits the 
passage of an alien to be paid by any relative or “friend” living in this country. 
Every employer who wants to bring in cheap laborers is of course a “friend ” to the m, 
or can find somebody to play the part. It is one of the readiest means of evading the 
contract-labor law. The privilege of paying the passage of others should be restricted 
to the nearest relatives—fathers, mothers, and children, brothers and sisters, husbands 
and wives. 

In accordance with the views here outlined, we recommend that you authorize your 
officers to use all honorable means for the amendment of our immigration lav s so as to 
exclude persons physically unfit, to check the evil of assisted immigration, to intro¬ 
duce an educational test, and to provide that ports of entry shall be confined to those 
on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. 

This resolution was reaffirmed at the Minneapolis convention of 

1906. 

But there was an additional resolution adopted at the Minne¬ 
apolis convention upon the subject of Chinese exclusion, which, I 
believe, would appropriately come before your committee too, and 
probably you would like to hear what expression was given. It says: 

Whereas the grave menace to our institutions—governmental and industrial—which 
Chinese labor constituted prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Chinese- 
exclusion law is insignificant when compared with the evils that are certain to follow 
unrestricted immigration to the United States and its territories of Japanese; and 

Whereas official records show that immigration of Japanese to our country is rapidly 
increasing: Therefore be it 

Resolved, That we reaffirm the position on the subject of oriental immigration taken 
by this federation at its twenty-fifth annual session, as expressed in the following reso¬ 
lutions: 

Whereas the menace of Chinese labor, greatly allayed by the passage and enforce¬ 
ment of the Chinese-exclusion act, has been succeeded by an evil similar in general 
character, but much more threatening in its possibilities, to wit: 

The immigration to the United States and its insular territory of large and increasing 
numbers of Japanese and Korean laborers; and 

Whereas American public sentiment against the immigration of Chinese labor, as 
expressed and crystallized in the enactment of the Chinese-exclusion act, finds still 
stronger justification in demanding prompt and adequate measures of protection 
against the immigration of Japanese and Korean labor, on the grounds: (1) That the 
wage and living standard of such labor are dangerous to and must, if granted recogni¬ 
tion in the United States, prove destructive of the American standards in these essen¬ 
tial respects; (2) that a racial incompatibility as between the people of the Orient and 
the United States presents problems of race preservation which it is our imperative duty 
to solve in our own favor, and which can only be thus solved by a policy of exclusion; 
and 

Whereas the systematic colonization of these oriental races in our insular territory 
in the Pacific and the threatened and partly accomplished extension of that system 
to the Pacific coast and other western localities of the United States constitutes a 
standing danger, not only to the domestic peace, but to the continuance of friendly 
relations between the nations concerned: Therefore be it 

Resolved, That the terms of the Chinese-exclusion act should be enlarged and' 
extended so as to permanently exclude from the United States and its insular territory 
all classes of Japanese and Koreans, other than those exempted by the present terms 
of that act; further 

Resolved, That these resolutions be submitted through the proper avenues to the 
Congress of the United States, with a request for favorable consideration and action by 
that body. 

In accordance therewith, I present it to your honorable body for 
your consideration. 

At the Norfolk convention in 1907 the resolution that was passed 
by the Pittsburg convention of 1905 on the question of illiteracy, or 
the educational test, was reaffirmed. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. US 

In 1908, at Denver, the position of the federation was changed 
somewhat by the adoption of this resolution: 

Whereas foreign steamship interests introduced Senate bill 5083, which would 
virtually repeal section 42, a much-needed humane provision requiring more air 
space and better sanitary conditions on immigrant ships; and 

Whereas the illiteracy test is the most practical means for the restricting of the 
present immigration of cheap labor, whose competition is so ruinous: Therefore be it 

Resolved, That we earnestly beseech and petition Congress to enact the illiteracy- 
test into law, and to refuse any modification of section 42, unless it be to increase the 
amount of air space and to require better sanitary accommodations in the steerage. 

Mr. Burnett. That was at what place and in what year ? 

Mr. Holder. That was at Denver, in 1908. 

In 1909, last year, the first convention that was held by the federa¬ 
tion on foreign soil, in Toronto, Canada, the federation took another 
step. In previous conventions there had been very vigorous efforts 
made to have the convention committed to a head tax and to other 
more rigid restrictions, but that position had never been taken 
beyond the illiteracy test until 1909, the convention at Toronto. 
The resolution is short and to the point: 

WTiereas the illiteracy test is the most practical means for restricting the present 
stimulated influx of cheap labor, whose competition is so ruinous to the workers 
already here, whether native or foreign; and 

WTiereas an increased head tax upon steamships is needed to provide better facilities, 
to more efficiently enforce our immigration laws, and to restrict immigration; and 

WTiereas the requirement of some visible means of support would enable immigrants 
to find profitable employment; and 

WTiereas the effect of the federal bureau of distribution is to stimulate foreign 
immigration: Therefore be it 

Resolved by the American Federation of Labor in twenty-ninth annual convention 
assembled , That we demand the enactment of the illiteracy test, the money test, an 
increased head tax, and the abolition of the distribution bureau; and be it further 

Resolved , That we favor heavily fining the foreign steamships for bringing debarable 
aliens where reasons for debarment could have been ascertained at time of sale of 
ticket. 

Mr. Goldfogle. When and where was that resolution adopted ? 

Mr. Holder. At Toronto, in November, 1909. 

Now, gentlemen, I have here some resolutions adopted by the 
Farmers’ National Union. 

Mr. O’Connell. Before you pass on, Mr. Holder, have we not 
passed some legislation that covers those resolutions, particularly the 
one about section 42. Did we not do that last year? 

Mr. Holder. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hayes. We enlarged the air space, sir. 

Mr. Holder. You changed the general standard, so as to accom¬ 
modate the various competitive lines. 

Mr. Hayes. We raised the requirements. 

Mr. O’Connell. You do not mean to say that we did it to accom¬ 
modate the steamship companies ? 

Mr. Holder. Oh, no; not in that way. 

Mr. O’Connell. The Senate bill, in my judgment, would have 
played into the hands of the steamship companies. We amended 
that. 

Mr. Goldfogle. One nation had one regulation and another nation 
had another regulation, and it would be impossible for a steamship 
company to be able to comply with both regulations; so we changed 
ours, enlarging the cubic inches of air space to each passenger in such 
a way as to make it possible to conform with the regulation. 

49090—10-8 


114 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Bennet. That is not strictly accurate. By section 42 of the 
act of 1907 we enlarged the requirements. After that the British 
board of trade adopted the same requirement. The Senate bill cor¬ 
responded exactly with the British requirements. This committee 
raised those requirements, and our bill, I think, without any amend¬ 
ment whatever, at least without any substantial amendment, sub¬ 
sequently became the law, increasing the American requirements 
above the others. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Let me ask Mr. Bennet a question? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Have the requirements been complied with? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes; and where they are not being complied with, 
every once in a while an arrest is made and a captain is tried and 
convicted. 

Mr. Goldfogle. How many convictions have there been? 

Mr. Bennet. My attention was called to two or three. 

Mr. Goldfogle. How many arrests have there been? 

Mr. Bennet. I do not know. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Or complaints? 

Mr. Bennet. I am not informed. I know the regulation is being 
enforced. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Do you think the requirements are ample, or do 
we need to pass still further statutes to enlarge the air space ? 

Mr. Bennet. The commission recommended that that particular 
question be deferred until we have a chance to test the statute now 
in force. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That ought to be one of the first steps taken by 
the commission. 

Mr. Sabath. I have prepared a bill on that subject which will cure 
any and all defects and take care of the things which have been com- 

E lained of. This bill will give still greater air space, and will take 
etter care of those people who are obliged to travel in steerage. 
It is bill 18399. A copy of it has been sent to the Bureau of Naviga¬ 
tion for information as to its wording and as to the bill in general. 
The committee asked the bureau to give us its opinion on the bill. 
I think that has been done. I just saw the Secretary, and he states 
to me that he has the bill there, aiid that I will have a report from 
that bureau on that bill within a few days. 

Mr. Holder. I would like to include in this general statement, 
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, two resolutions 
adopted by the Farmers’ National Union that had been submitted to 
Mr. Gompers for consideration by a labor conference held in the office 
of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor a year ago. They are 
pertinent to this general question, and I think it is appropriate that 
they be brought before your honorable body: 

Whereas we are unalterably opposed to the present enormous alien influx, as detri¬ 
mental to the best interests of the farming communities and the welfare of our whole 
country: Therefore, be it 

Resolved , That the Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union of America, in 
national convention assembled, at Memphis, Tenn., this 8th day of January, 1908, and 
representing two millions of farmers, urge upon Congress the speedy enactment of 
laws substantially excluding the present enormous alien influx by means of an incerased 
head tax, a money requirement, the illiteracy test, and other measures, and that we 
call upon our public and especially our state officials to prevent our agricultural 
sections from becoming a dumping ground for foreign immigrants. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


115 


That was resolution No. 1. 

Mr. Burnett. What is the date of that ? ’ 

Mr. Holder. The 8th day of January, 1908, at Memphis, Tenn. 
Mr. Kustermann. Are those all southern farmers? They cer¬ 
tainly do not come from New York or Wisconsin. 

Mr. Burnett. There are thousands of them in the West. 

Mr. Holder. They reach above the Ohio River and the far West. 
Mr. O’Connell. Can you tell us how many there are in this 
organization ? 

Mr. Holder. These people themselves say they have 2,000,000 of 
farmers. 

Mr. Hayes. The membership has now grown to 3,000,000. 

Mr. Holder. This resolution refers to their strength a year ago. 
Mr. Burnett. There are a number of them from the West and 
from the Northwest. 

Mr. Holder. The other resolution, No. 2, reads as follows: 

Whereas foreign immigration is being advocated for southern and western farming 
communities, the United States Immigration Commission is investigating the subject, 
and a federal bureau is being established for the purpose of distributing and diverting 
foreigners; 

Whereas the present flagrant lax enforcement of existing immigration laws and the 
urgent need of additional restrictive legislation will soon result in the agricultural 
sections in the South and West being made a dumping ground for undesirable south¬ 
east European and Asiatic populations: Therefore, be it 
Resolved, That the Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union of America, in its 
third annual convention at Fort Worth, Tex., this 3d day of September, 1908, and 
representing over 2,000,000 farmers, hereby adopts the immigration resolutions 

{ )assed last January at the annual rally in Memphis, calling for federal and state 
egislation abolishing immigration bureaus and substantially excluding the present 
alien influx of cheap labor from southeastern Europe and western Asia, and urge 
upon federal officials the vigorous enforcement of all immigration laws, in order to 
properly protect the country’s welfare and to preserve its institutions, safeguard its 
citizenship, and preserve its Anglo-Saxon civilization for posterity; and be it further 
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to each Member of Congress by the 
chairman of the national legislative committee, with request that they be printed in 
the Congressional Record, and to the Immigration Commission, with request that they 
be incorporated in its report; and be it further 

Resolved, That the state presidents and lecturers emphasize this one question with 
a view to having members take it up in conference and by letter with their Con¬ 
gressmen and Senators. 

Mr. Adair. Let me ask this question- 

Mr. Kustermann. All those resolutions were printed in our hear¬ 
ings, were they not ? 

Mr. Adair. Let me ask this question: Does this class of immigra¬ 
tion referred to in these resolutions settle on farms and take to that 
class of work, or is it not true that they remain to a great extent in 
the large cities of the country ? 

Mr. Holder. I believe that you have practically answered your 
own question, in a way. They do remain largely in the cities, but 
there has been of recent date an effort made to divert that immigra¬ 
tion to the West and to the South, and these resolutions from the 
farmers are evidently a protest against having them. 

Mr. Adair. Has this effort to any extent been successful ? 

Mr. Holder. I am not able to say. I think the figures in the pos¬ 
session of the Immigration Committee and commission would sub¬ 
stantially give you that information. 

Mr. Adair. Do you think, then, that the fear as expressed in these 
resolutions by the farming element of the country is well founded? 



116 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Holder. Well, I would not care to express an opinion upon 
that. I think they are better able to voice their own fears than I 
would be. 

Mr. Gardner. Is not the fact this: When, for a time in 1906, an 
effort was made to restrict immigration, did not many peaple say, 
“The trouble is not with your influx of immigration; the trouble is 
that it is not properly distributed where it is needed; in other words 
you do not connect the manless job with the jobless man?” 

Mr. Holder. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gardner. And that this suggestion was made—that these 
bureaus would assist in distributing immigrants where they were 
needed, and that, as a matter of fact, the bureaus had not had very 
much effect one way or the other. Now, as a matter of fact, the 
greatest experiment in distribution that has been made was that 
made by the State of South Carolina. They received 762 immi¬ 
grants from Berlin and Belgium and other places, and the result of 
that experiment was that within a year out of that 762 immigrants 
all but 72 had disappeared from the State of South Carolina and 
had gone elsewhere. Some of those had gone back to their own 
country and others had drifted north, showing quite conclusively 
that trying to distribute immigration where immigration does not 
naturally want to be distributed is a farce and is not, in truth, what 
we are really suffering from. I voted in favor of that distribution 
bureau merely because I thought it would demonstrate the fact 
that our trouble was not the lack of distribution. The trouble is 
that we are getting too many immigrants. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Do you think the South Carolina case to which 
you have called attention is a fair test ? 

Mr. Gardner. I think it is a pretty good example of the fact that 
you can not make men go where they can only get a dollar a day if 
they can get a dollar and a half a day somewhere else. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Well, if they could get a dollar and a half a day 
somewhere else, it would be advantageous both to themselves and 
to the country to go there. If they looked for better and higher 
wages, it is rather commendable, is it not ? 

Mr. Gardner. They will not stay where the economic conditions 
are unfavorable to themselves, but they will go where they will get 
the best pay and the most favorable social conditions. Of course 
the negro population in the South affects the social conditions. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I asked you whether you did not think it was 
commendable, as well as justifiable, for a man when he was getting 
only a dollar in one place to go somewhere else, where he could get 
a dollar and a half. 

Mr. Gardner. I should prefer that he would not come at all. 

Mr. Bennet. In other words, the immigrant is intelligent enough 
to find out where it is to his best interests to go, and he goes there. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Like every other man. 

Mr. Adair. Regardless of the amount of compensation that they 
receive for their services. 

Mr. O’Connell. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Holder passes on I 
would like to say that my attention was called to one of the resolutions 
stating that “Whereas the present flagrant lax enforcement of 
existing immigration laws” is one of the causes of this immigration 
that they protest against. I would like to ask Mr. Holder if it is 
possible for us to receive from this organization any definite details 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


117 


as to any flagrantly lax enforcement of the immigration laws. My 
experience at Boston, I might say, has been that immigration laws 
are very strictly enforced, and I imagine that the experience of 
every other Member of Congress in the cities where there is immigra¬ 
tion is pretty nearly the same. 

Mr. Goldfogle. It is in New York. 

Mr. O’Connell. Now, a statement like that, if it is not so, certainly 
vitiates the whole resolution, if that is one of the principal grounds 
of protest. 

Mr. Goldfogle. They have rigidly enforced the immigration 
laws—in many cases so rigidly that notwithstanding the policy that 
has been pursued lately in Washington, there have been reversals of 
the action taken as a result of a special inquiry. 

Mr. Burnett. I saw that one man lost his job up there because he 
was not enforcing the law. 

Mr. Adair. Is it not true that the number of men now in the 
employ of the Government in New York City to enforce the law is 
not sufficient to take care of the vast number of immigrants arriving 
in any one day ? I see that in some cases 5,000 immigrants arrive 
in one day, and the force now provided by the Government to take 
those immigrants in charge have only about two minutes for each 
examination on the first examination, and only 70 per cent of them 
are accepted on the first examination. Do you think that a proper 
examination can be made in two minutes when something like 36 
or 38 questions are asked every immigrant that comes in here, and 
if that is true, is it not a fact that, at least to some extent, there is a 
little laxity, as is mentioned in this resolution ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. I will reply to the gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. Sabath. Can we not thrash that out later, and let the gentle¬ 
man go on ? 

Mr. O’Connell. Would it be possible for the gentleman to answer 
my first question? 

Mr. Gardner. I was going to ask the witness if the mere fact that 
there was an inaccuracy in the wording of the resolution would 
prove that the American Federation of Labor did not know- 

Mr. Holder. This is the farmers’ organization that adopted this 
resolution, and while the statement would appear to be extravagant, 
it voices a general opinion that is prevalent over the length and breadth 
of our land, that there is a leakage; and while this organization of 
farmers may not be able to put their finger definitely upon the place 
where there is a lax enforcement, they are simply representing that 
sentiment of feeling among their people that the regulations are not 
enforced according to the laws that you enact. 

Mr. O’Connell. Let me ask you whether any member of the. 
Farmers’ Union, or has the organization itself, any letters of pro¬ 
test or information that would give us specific facts, showing where 
there has been any flagrant laxity in the enforcement of the existing 
laws? 

Mr. Holder. I can offer my services to the best of my ability to 
secure that information, or this committee could exercise its authority 
by letting the farmers’ organization officials know that this matter 
has been called to your attention, and that you questioned the state¬ 
ment, and ask them to furnish the proofs. 

Mr. Burnett. I do not question it, because the Immigration Com¬ 
mission can furnish them some proof. Along the Mexican border 



118 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


there was a systematic traffic going on in the smuggling of Chinese 
across the border. 

Mr. Sabath. I do not believe Mr. O’Connell had reference to the 
Chinese at all. They do not come through New York at all. He had 
reference to Boston and New York. I do not suppose any Chinese 
come through New York. 

Mr. Hayes. Yes; they do. 

Mr. O’Connell. It seems to me that that is such a sweeping 
charge against the Government itself and against the Department of 
Commerce and Labor that, as it has appeared before the committee 
in this form, there ought to be some details and facts to back it up. 

Mr. Elvins. Mr. O’Connell, will you not be willing to allow a 
little poetic license to a set of resolutions of this kind, just the same 
as you would allow some poetic license in the platforms of political 
parties ? 

Mr. O’Connell. I do not like to legislate on poetic licenses. 

Mr. Holder. Then, gentlemen, if you will permit, let me add this: 
I do not know that there will be a great deal of progress made, even 
at this time, by questioning the authenticity or correctness of that 
statement, as to its being extravagant or not, but let us come to the 
principle you were considering this morning, as embraced either in 
Mr. Gardner’s bill, No. 15413, or Mr. Hayes’s bill, No. 13404. 

While we have not made it a practice to commit ourselves to any 
particular bill unless we have had something to do with the prepara¬ 
tion of it, we do want to show our partisanship with regard to the 
principles contained in a bill. 

Mr. Gardner’s bill, for a number of years, has been considered a 
very, very broad one—a humane provision for good citizenship when 
people arrive here, for the protection of immigrant homes, and for 
the establishment of a standard that might be pursued with great 
advantage by other countries when they have some immigration 
problems to adjust. 

Mr. Hayes’s bill goes probably a little further. His bill embraces 
the necessary educational tests of reading and writing in any dialect 
or language in any European country, and personally I would prefer 
that to the provision of Mr. Gardner’s bill, where he makes the test 
the ability to read and write in the language or dialect of any country. 
I think we could safely confine ourselves to Europeans. 

The head-tax part of the proposition we look at from an economic 
standpoint. Some of our people are not altogether wholly in favor of 
simply charging a head tax upon the alien who comes in the first time. 
I believe a great many of our people are in favor of making them pay 
a price for every visitor, whether he goes and returns as a citizen or 
whether he is a newcomer and has his quarters in the first class, sec¬ 
ond class, or steerage. We take the ground that it is worth some¬ 
thing to come to the United States, and, as a revenue proposition, it 
would be well worth the consideration of Congress. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Let me ask you this, Mr. Holder- 

Mr. Holder. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You mean you would charge a head tax upon 
citizens returning to this country who are first or second class pas¬ 
sengers on steamships ? 

Mr. Holder. No; I would not be in favor of going that far, but all 
visitors in those first and second class cabins, as well as steerage pas¬ 
sengers, or aliens- 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 119 


Mr. Goldfogle. No; you spoke of “citizens.” Did you mean 
citizens of this country ? 

Mr. Holder. That might be considered as a secondary proposition 
later; but that sentiment is abroad, and I am merely representing 
that sentiment to you. 

Mr. Gardner. If a man comes in here, he shall pay his head tax. 
If he goes out again without becoming a citizen, if he goes back for 
the summer, when he comes in again he shall pay his head tax again ? 

Mr. Holder. I mean that as a primary proposition; but from a 
revenue standpoint, and in order to prevent that leakage that was 
complained of at the last meeting, where you had so many hundreds 
of thousands coming in 'without paying a head tax- 

Mr. Goldfogle. I understand you to say that you would have a 
head tax placed upon our own citizens who have gone abroad and 
who have returned- 


Mr. Holder. Let me place that squarely with you, Judge. I want 
to make that thoroughly understood, and there is no reason for 
evasion- 

Mr. Goldfogle. Certainly not. 

Mr. Holder (continuing). Or of making a double meaning out 
of it. I am telling you now the sentiment of a great many people 
that I meet, and which has not been crystallized into any definite 
expression, and that is only one of the ways that you get information, 
by finding the sentiment of the people whom you meet by what they 
tell you. I tell you that is the sentiment out in the States, so that 
you may be prepared for it when you find it yourselves. 

Mr. O’Connell. You used the word “citizen.” Now, I do not 
suppose the American Federation of Labor wants to go on record as 
saying that if a citizen happens to travel to another country and 
comes back he is to be subjected to a head tax? 

Mr. Holder. I do not think I said that. 

Mr. O’Connell. You used the word “citizen.” 

Mr. Holder. Yes. That was to convey to you the fact that that 
sentiment is abroad, but has not been crystallized in any meeting or 
in any convention, to my knowledge. 

Mr. O’Connell. It would probably prevent all traveling outside 
of this country. 

Mr. Burnett. He does not say the position of the American 


Federation of Labor is such. 

Mr. Adair. It would hardly prevent traveling on the part of a man 
who has the means to travel. Such a man would be able to pay the 
tax. Anyone who is financially able to visit the Old World would, 
if necessary, pay the $4. However, I do not wish to be understood 
as favoring such a tax at this time. 

Mr. O’Connell. Take the case of the American Federation of 
Labor. They held their convention in Toronto last year, and those 
same men would have to pay a head tax in order to come back to this 
country. 

Mr. Holder. Do not misunderstand me, Mr. O’Connell and gen¬ 
tlemen of the committee, that I have reported to you this morning 
that the American Federation of Labor was in favor of that. I have 
tried to represent to you the sentiments of people that I meet away 
out in the States, who are quite exercised over this question. It 
means their life, it means their happiness, and they look at it some¬ 
times from a very prejudiced standpoint. They do not see you to 




120 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


tell you that, but we fellows who are representing the labor organiza¬ 
tions, when we go into their homes and meetings and gatherings, 
they do not hesitate to express their views to us. They may express 
them crudely at times, but they are given in a very forcible way, and 
I thought I would present that phase of this question at least to you 
this morning. 

Mr. Sabatii. While a tax should be collected, and is collected, 
the law provides that any alien must pay a head tax, whether he 
travels in the steerage or second cabin or first cabin. If there is any 
leakage we are to ascertain where it is, and if there is any shortage 
we are to ascertain where it is. 

Mr. Burnett. I understand that does not embrace returning 
aliens. 

Mr. Sabath. Every alien, as I understand, pays the tax. 

Mr. Bennet. I have a letter here from Ormsby McHarg- 

Mr. Sabatii. There were only ten or twelve exceptions last year. 

Mr. Goldfogle. If they went abroad with the intention of 
returning- 

Mr. Holder. Now, gentlemen, if I may be permitted, there is an¬ 
other phase of this immigration proposition that I would like to 
present to you from one of our organizations. This comes from the 
musicians, who have had a grievance for several years- 

Mr. Kustermann. That is my trade. 

Mr. Holder. You may be in sympathy with this, then. 

This was adopted at the Toronto convention, at the solicitation 
of the musicians of the United States, and I hope that Mr. Kuster¬ 
mann will be able to find that there is an opportunity for him to 
champion the members of his own craft. 

Mr. Kustermann. Let us hear what they say. 

Mr. Holder. (Reading): 

Whereas the American musician is m no wise protected by the alien contract labor 
law, and the lack of such protection leaves him subjected to cheap foreign competi¬ 
tion; and 

Whereas the French Opera Company of New Orleans, La., has imported an alien 
orchestra, thus displacing American musicians; and 

Whereas before such importation was effected a proposition was made to the Amer¬ 
ican Federation of Musicians, through its local union in New Orleans, to submit to a 
cut in wages, which is proof sufficient that the importation of said orchestra was made 
by the French Opera Company to avoid the paying of the established wages to Amer¬ 
ican musicians; and 

Whereas information has been received to the effect that the management of the 
Land and Irrigation Exposition in Chicago, Ill., has succeeded in securing the services 
of a Mexican band through the courtesy of President Diaz of Mexico, free of costs, 
excepting transportation and board; and 

Whereas the allegations of promoters that the importing of musicians is a necessity 
for the reason that fully qualified musicians to fill all engagements can not be procured 
in this country are untrue, as for a matter of fact fully qualified American musicians 
are continually out of employment: therefore be it 

Resolved , That this convention go on record protesting against the importation of 
all alien bands and orchestras as unjust, and only made by the promoters for the 
purpose of evading the paying of the American scale of wages: and be it further 

Resolved , That the executive council be hereby instructed to call the matter to the 
attention of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and take such other steps as in their 
judgment will result in the amending of the alien contract-labor law for the protection 
-of the American musicians against the importation of foreign bands and orchestras. 

Mr. Kustermann. So that means that all artists are to be kept out 
of this country, and that we are to be exposed to all the discords fur¬ 
nished b} r some of our American bands. 





HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


121 


Mr. Goldfogle. This has reference to both artists and nonartists. 

Mr. Kustermann. It is one of the most unjust things I have heard 
of, to not allow a man to come in here who is doing something to pro¬ 
mote art in this country. If your resolutions all run along that line, 
I tell you that it would have been best for you not to have introduced 
them. I have heard Italian and Mexican bands in Milwaukee and 
Chicago. It was a great treat, and there are no bands anywhere in 
this country that furnish more artistic music. Now, the idea of keep¬ 
ing out those people is an outrage. Let the artists come in. 

Mr. Hayes. You misinterpret the resolution. The resolution does 
not ask to keep them out. It asks you to prevent them from being 
brought in under contract. 

^ Mr. Holder. Free immigration has not been provided against, Mr. 
Kustermann. 

Mr. Adair. They do not charge that you should keep any of your 
friends from Hamburg from coming here, Mr. Kustermann. 

Mr. Kustermann. Well, we will see. But really that resolution is 
going too far, and it is a good thing that you have gone that far, 
because it is an eye-opener for other unjust things for which you are 
asking. • 

Mr. O’Connell. Possibly, Mr. Kustermann, the resolution does not 
express just what these men want. I do not understand it to mean 
that they are against artists or the representatives of high art. I 
understand that it was to prevent musicians from coming in here for 
the purpose of cutting the wages now received by American musicians. 
Possibly there is something in common between you, and there is a 
misunderstanding. I should say it was for the purpose of preventing 
a violation of the contract law. Is that the idea ? 

Mr. Holder. Absolutely, Mr. O’Connell. And I think that if Mr. 
Kustermann would kindly read that resolution carefully himself, he 
would see it as we do. Possibly I did not read it with such clearness 
that I was able to make myself understood. 

Mr. Kustermann. We want all the good musicians here that we 
can secure. There is nothing that does more for the people in gen¬ 
eral than music. 

Mr. Holder. I do not think, from my reading of that resolution, 
that there has been the least disposition to curb art or to restrain har¬ 
mony; but there is an economic request in there, that the man wno is 
able to play and to charm another and to relieve sadness or to give 
entertainment, shall be properly compensated for what he does, and 
I believe you will stand oy that. 

Mr Kustermann. I think they generally insist upon that. 

Mr. Holder. But here is a case where the musicians have come 
to Congress repeatedly, for years, asking them for protection, and 
that is all I am asking for them to-day. 

Mr. Kustermann. I want to know what kind of musicians are 
asking for that protection ? 

Mr. Holder. Here is a body of 60,000 men who are the cream of 
the artists in the United States. The point to determine is, whether 
they deserve this protection which is asked. 

Mr. Kustermann. The Mexican Government was ready and willing 
to assist all they could to make the Land and Irrigation Exposition 
in Chicago a success, and this musicians’ organization finds fault with 
the generosity of Mexico in furnishing these excellent musicians free 


122 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


of expense. You could not get a band of 50 or 100 artists to come 
here without making some previous arrangement or contract. They 
must have arrangements made for their tour, the same as an actor or 
actress does. It is perfectly proper. 

Mr. Holder. That general subject-matter, Mr. Kustermann, is open 
for the rigid investigation of this committee, and if there is injustice 
being performed, I believe you are the men to find out where the 
injustice is, and rectify it. That is all we are asking for. 

Mr. Burnett. I understood a while ago that they did not usually 
come over under contracts. 

Mr. Sabath. This Mexican band did not. 

Mr. Holder. That is one of the most recent incidents, but the 
musicians of our country have had a standing grievance against that 
method of procedure, and I believe they are justified in making their 
protest and asking me to bring it before you. 

Mr. Kustermann. And these men do not want the members of the 
Marine Band to play anywhere except for governmental functions. 
That is wrong. Why don’t we give the people of the United States a 
chance to hear them as much as possible ? 

Mr. Holder. When it comes to a question of bread ahd butter, 
Mr. Kustermann, it is liable to make any man go the limit. 

Mr. O’Connell. It seems to me that the first part of that resolu¬ 
tion, about New Orleans, is a violation of the alien contract law. 

Mr. Bennet. I looked that up. They came in as artists. 

Mr. Holder. That is one of the evasive methods that is used to 
get them in. They come in as artists. 

Mr. Kustermann. I wish I were on that commission to find out 
whether a man is really an artist or not, and to keep him out if he 
is not. 

Mr. Hayes. Let us hear Mr. Holder now. 

Mr. Holder. I have practically gotten through with what I had 
to offer. If any gentleman has any questions to ask, I will be glad 
to answer them. 

Mr. Sabath. What is the pay of ordinary musicians ? 

Mr. Holder. Well, I could not tell you that, Mr. Sabath, because 
I do not know one note from another, and I never associated with a 
musician. 

Mr. Sabath. How much do they charge an hour ? 

Mr. O’Connell. They charge enough to get in to hear them; I will 
tell you that. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Keliher, a Member of the House, is here and 
wants to be heard. 

Mr. Keliher. I do not care to be heard to-day. 

Mr. Gardner. Does that gentleman over there want to be heard ? 

(No response.) 

The Chairman. We are ver}^ much indebted to you for coming 
here, Mr. Holder. 

Mr. Holder. I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
the courtesy that has been accorded me in representing the great body 
of men that I do. Doubtless I have been somewhat weak in the 
presentation of my case, but in case any measure or any question 
should come up in the future, and you will let me know, and if I can 
get the information for you, I would be very glad to. I believe that 
this is a question of enlightenment. Just as soon as we find out what 
the trouble is, our people are going to find a solution of the problem. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


123 


Mr. Sabath. Will you please tell us what the membership is of 
this Farmers’ Union and how many members it has in each State? 

Mr. Holder. I would have to give you that, Mr. Sabath, fn a 
general way. I have not had very much contact with the farmers. 
I was only at a couple of their meetings, and had no opportunity 
to get detailed information. I know that in Texas, Arkansas, Cali¬ 
fornia, Oregon, Washington, and in the Northwest, coming down 
through Montana, in Nebraska, the two Dakotas, touching Iowa, 
into Missouri and Kansas, it is very, very strong, and then as we 
come across the Mississippi Kiver into the southeast section of the 
country they are very strong. They have not got north of the 
Ohio Kiver to any great extent. I believe that is where the Grange, 
as a whole, is the most numerous. There will be a convention of 
all these interests on March 6 in Chicago, where the Grange, the 
Farmers’ National Union, and the American Society of Equity will be 
present. They are the three largest organizations that are looking 
after the interests of the farmers cooperatively and industrially. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What does the American Society of Equity 
represent ? 

Mr. Holder. That is an organization that is looking after’ the 
grain, cotton, and tobacco interests. The railroad organizations, 
constituting the brotherhoods, and the American Federation of 
Labor represent the trade industries. They are going to have a 
conference with the farmers’ organizations on March 6 in Chicago, 
upon legislative propositions, and will present them before Congress. 
Immigration, I presume, will be one of the questions. 

Mr. O’Connell. Can you tell us, Mr. Holder, at the present time 
how much part unskilled labor plays in the deliberations of the 
American Federation of Labor? What I am trying to get at is to 
find out wdiether they are looking after the skilled labor of this 
country or the unskilled labor. 

Mr. Holder. I am glad you asked me that question, Mr. O’Connell. 
It was a phase that I had intended to touch upon extemporaneously, 
and if I had prompted you to ask me that it could not have come in 
more appropriately. 

The American Federation of Labor, gentlemen, occupies a most 
unique position in the economic, industrial, and social affairs of our 
nation. It is the only body of organized effort that takes the raw 
material as it is landed upon our shores and attempts to assimilate 
it, to mold it, to teach it to become American citizens, to stand for 
an American standard of living. None of the fraternal organizations 
or political organizations pays any heed to that great host, averaging 
seven or eight hundred thousand or a million a }^ea,r that are coming 
to our shores; but the American Federation of Labor goes to them 
with open hands, and it says, “ Brother, come with us, and w T e will, if 
we can and you will permit us, make your lot in. life happier.” And 
in that connection, gentlemen, w^e realize that w^e have got a herculean 
task, and sometimes it looks like a hopeless one. We are not a 
financial institution. Our organization is simply supported by a 
half cent a month per capita from the members. Six lone cents a 
year is all we pay into our treasury, and out of that our missionaries 
or organizers or agitators—call them whatever name you please— 
have to be supported to carry on this work and this doctrine of self- 
help to the newcomers. 


124 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Kustermann. Just one minute. I see in the report of the im¬ 
migration commissioner of New York that the great majority of the 
federated organizations do not take any aliens as members. They do 
not seem to be stretching out their hands- 

Mr. Holder. Where did you get that information, Mr. Kiister- 
mann ? 

Mr. Kustermann. I have not that report with me. I left it in my 
room. That report states that the majority of them do not accept 
aliens. They must be citizens of the United States before they ad¬ 
mit them. So they have got to be molded before you commence 
your molding. 

Mr. Holder. I am glad you brought that to my mind, too, because 
that also leaves an opportunity for explanation; but before taking 
that up, Mr. Kustermann, let me answer, in a few words, the direct 
question of Mr. O’Connell, in which he asked whether our organiza¬ 
tions simply nurse the skilled trades at the expense of the unskilled. 
I want to answer that tersely and to the point, that our doors are open 
to all who work with their hands, whether they are of American birth, 
American citizens by naturalization, or whether they come from any 
land, from any clime. We know no race, no sect, no sex, no nation¬ 
ality. Now, what broader claim to the brotherhood of man do you 
want than that? 

Now, I would like to reply directly to what Mr. Kustermann has 
asked, and I will say that there is one organization that says that a 
man must be a citizen before he is admitted as a member, and I will 
tell you the reason why, if you will permit me. 

Mr. Kustermann. There were several in that report. 

Mr. Holder. Well, there is one, and that is the United Brotherhood 
of Carpenters and Joiners, and the reason for that provision—if you 
will bear a little with me, so that you will grasp the w T hole of it—is 
because there is an English organization named the amalgamated car¬ 
penters in the United States, and the brotherhood, which is the Ameri¬ 
can organization, has made it one of its provisions that it wants the 
members of the amalgamated to take out citizenship papers before they 
join that organization. That is all there is to that. It is not narrow. 
If there is any other organization that has a like provision I have never 
learned of it, and if I do learn of it, I will investigate the matter 
further. 

Mr. Kustermann. I will look that up. 

Mr. Bennet. I think you made a very broad claim when you said 
that nobody else is looking after the interests of immigrants. The 
church of which I have the honor to be a member does that, and 
there are a great many Jewish organizations that look after the immi¬ 
grants. There are some Polish, Swedish, Italian, German, possibly 
25 or 30 organizations in New York City alone whose business it is to 
minister to the newly arrived immigrant. I do not think you meant 
to exclude them in your statement. 

Mr. Holder. Certainly not. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I would not be doing my duty at all if I did not 
call your attention to the fact, Mr. Holder, that there is in my city, 
New York, as well as, to my knowledge, in a great many other places 
throughout the United States, a number of organizations who give 
their whole attention to the immigrants, look to their Americaniza¬ 
tion, and seek to obtain for them a profitable employment at wages 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


125 


not incompatible with the standard of wages that obtains among 
men of the federation. These organizations give attention to the 
poor and needy, and in other directions help the immigrant in the 
ways that you so eloquently stated the federation did for the men 
who came to this country from abroad. I can mention a number of 
these organizations. Some of them I have been personally connected 
with; in some I have been a director, and in some I have stood at the 
head. I do not think, Mr. Holder, you meant to be unjust to those 
organizations. I am afraid you made your statement a little broad. 

Mr. Holder. Positively, I did not intend to exclude them, nor do 
or say a single word that would bring reflection or reproach on any 
class. 

Mr. Goldfogle. For instance, in my own district we have a 
sheltering home for immigrants, and we have a number of other 
immigrant institutions, the managements of which have given 
splendid attention to the needs of the immigrant class, and have done 
an immense amount of work toward the Americanization of the 
immigrant and toward helping him to become assimilated with the 
Americans and to adopt American habits and customs and mode of 
life, and to enable him to reach a state when he would not only be 
helpful to himself but helpful to his fellow-men and to become pros¬ 
perous in the community. 

Mr. Holder. That is admittedly true, Judge. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That is equally so with regard to organizations 
such as the Independent Order Brith Abraham, the Order Brith 
Abraham, United Hebrew Charities, the Irish Immigrant Society, 
and Italian societies, and societies of other nationalities and creeds. 

Mr. O’Connell. I understand that the same societies are doing 
the same kind of work in the city of Boston. 

Mr. Sabath. And I want to state that the same societies are doing 
that work in Chicago, and the Bohemian and Polish people in that 
city are also taking care of and looking after new arrivals. 

Mr. Holder. But the point that I want to make, and I hope that 
I can clearly make it, is that the American Federation of Labor, 
knowing no creed, nationality, or race, opens its doors wide and 
invites the immigrants to socially mix with each other. The organi¬ 
zations you have referred to do not do that as generously, I do not 
think; and we know this, that from a cosmopolitan standpoint, where 
the opportunity is afforded to exercise all of the intelligent effort for 
the bettering of human life, we are filling a position in society that is 
very much needed and should be encouraged. I believe I make 
myself clear in that. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I simply did not want the statement, which, I 
believe, you have conceded to be too broad, to go unchallenged. 
There are many organizations who are doing this good, charitable 
work that goes to the Americanization of the man who comes from 
abroad to build a home for himself here. 

Mr. Holder. We hail with delight, Judge, any effort made of that 
character, either on secular lines, fraternal lines, industrial lines, 
social lines, or any other lines that will make for the uplift of men, 
and we are trying to do our part. 

Mr. O’Connell. Is not the great majority of the American Feder¬ 
ation of Labor composed of the highly skilled labor of this country ? 

Mr. Holder. Well, I would reply to that in the affirmative, Mr. 
O’Connell; but it is not our fault. 


126 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. O'Connell. Oh, I think it is to your credit. 

Mr. Holder. That is not our fault. We do not say to a man who 
is not skilled, “You shall not come in." We say, “Come, and you 
shall share equally with us." But we do also admit that the cream 
of the industrial workers of the United States is in our organization. 

Mr. Sabath. And the aim has been to increase and enlarge ? 

Mr. Holder. To make better; yes, sir. 

Mr. Adair. And they all have the same opportunity to work their 
way up in the organization? 

Mr. Holder. Sure, absolutely. There is no restriction. I hand 
for the record the following extract from the II Giornale Italiano. 

[Extract from II Giornale Italiano, Thursday, February 3, 1910.] 

FOR FREE IMMIGRATION—AN IMPORTANT MEETING. 

Mr. N. Behar, administrative director of the National Immigration League, of 
which Hon. Edward Lauterbach is the president, has sent to the foreign newspapers 
which are published in America a circular, which we herewith translate: 

“Immigration is in peril. Besides the measures of the Hayes law, many others 
have been presented to Congress, all with the intention of the restriction, or rather 
the abolition, of immigration. The incessant and energetic propaganda of the restric- 
tionists has borne its fruits even among liberally disposed people. These say that it 
is necessary to give some satisfaction to such persistent demands. Some would con¬ 
sent to the educational test, others to the head tax of $25, and many have decided to 
recommend the approval of the Hayes law with modifications. It is time that the 
newspapers representing the foreign colonies—which naturally are most imme¬ 
diately interested in immigration—should organize in a solid body to oppose the forces 
of the restrictionists in the present session of Congress, and, to take away the power 
of the restrictionists in the future, should do whatever is in their power to impress 
on the minds of their immigrants the fact that they must do honor to the race to which 
they belong, wherever they may be.” 

Mr. Behar has called for Monday, the 7th instant, at 4 p. m., in the office of the 
American Association of Foreign Newspapers, room 712, World Building, a meeting 
of all the editors of foreign newspapers to discuss the most efficacious means of propa¬ 
ganda against the proposed abolitionist measures. 

We are in perfect sympathy with this movement, promoted by the National Lib¬ 
eral Immigration League, and we promise to do all in our power to promote the benefit 
of our immigration. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Simon Wolf, of Washington, 
and Dr. Cyrus Adler, and some other gentlemen, who have made the 
subject of immigration a study, and who have had a very large ex¬ 
perience in matters affecting immigration, desire to be heard by this 
committee. I have been communicated with by some of the gentle¬ 
men and have been asked to have a day set when these gentlemen 
and others who represent like interests may be heard. May I now 
ask to have a time set when these gentlemen, or some of them, can 
come before this committee ? 

The Chairman. Would you name any time when you would like 
to have them come here ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. So far as Mr. Wolf and Mr. Adler are concerned, 
you may anticipate very brief statements. Mr. Wolf is an old, ex¬ 
perienced hand at addressing committees. Doctor Adler was the 
librarian of the Smithsonian Institution, and they are experienced 
and understand the necessity of being brief and presenting their 
arguments with clearness. 

The Chairman. Let us fix Friday, the 11th of March, at 10.30 
o'clock a. m., as a time to hear those gentlemen. 

(Thereupon, at 12.05 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 
Tuesday, March 1, 1910, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


127 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives , February 28, 1910. 

A meeting of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization 
was held Monday afternoon, February 28, 1910, at 3 p. m., to receive 
a delegation representing the editors and publishers of 350 newspapers 
published in 24 different foreign languages. The members of the del¬ 
egation were introduced to the chairman, Representative Howell, and 
the members of the committee by Mr. Louis N. Hammerling, presi¬ 
dent of the American Association of Foreign Newspapers. Others 
present at the meeting were Representatives Elvins, Kiistermann, 
and Moore, of Texas. 

Mr. Hammerling filed the following communication with the chair¬ 
man of the committee: 

American Association of Foreign Language Newspapers, 

New York City. 

The Chairman Committee on Immigration, 

House of Representatives , Washington , D. C. 

Sir: The delegation before you is a committee duly elected by the editors and 
publishers of 350 daily and weekly newspapers published in 24 different foreign lan¬ 
guages in the United States. These newspapers reach a population of over 14,000,000 
people, most of whom are American citizens. 

I have been chosen as their spokesman, to express their disapproval of certain bills 
offered in Congress designed to impose what we consider an unfair and an unnecessary 
burden upon immigrants. 

These bills have for their purpose an increase in the per capita tax and the imposi¬ 
tion of an educational test upon the immigrant. 

We have no objection to the restriction of such immigration as in the wisdom of our 
lawmakers may appear undesirable. 

We do object to the legislation in question, because it goes outside of the experience 
of this nation in the admission of immigrants, and we insist that there is an absence of 
fair-mindedness in the conception of the purposes embodied in these bills. 

An increase in the head tax upon the immigrant is a tax imposed upon an individual 
the least able of any to bear it, because of the expense of a long journey and the demand 
made upon him in the shape of a provision for those who may be left behind, which in 
itself is an exceptional financial strain. The Government of the United States can 
not justify this tax on the ground of raising revenue, because the nation is too rich 
and too strong to levy an exaction upon those the least able to bear the burden. When 
viewed in this light such a tax must be considered for the purpose of restricting the 
coming of the immigrant. 

We respectfully submit that a condition has not yet arisen in this country when the 
dictates of good governmental policy require the restriction of desirable immigrants. 
The vast undeveloped area in this country when worked by the hands of the worthy 
immigrant coming to these shores will add enormously to the wealth of the nation. 

In our opinion there is neither historical nor practical justification for legislation 
which has for its purpose the imposition of an educational test upon the immigrant. 
We feel that the reasons advanced by the advocates of such legislation are based upon 
a must superficial examination of the circumstances which induce illiteracy on the 
part of the immigrant. We insist that the lack of general education on the part of 
the immigrant is due to the absence of popular school systems in the countries from 
which the immigrants come. This is peculiarly the case with the south of Europe 
and Russia. It is not long ago that the same complaint was being made about the 
immigrants from the north of Europe. This condition has been overcome. Schools 
have been provided in the north European countries, and to-day there is but little 
more illiteracy there than is found in the United States. 

We respectfully submit that an impediment that goes no deeper than the lack of an 
education sufficient to meet the test imposed by the advocates of the educational 
test can readily be overcome. All that is needed for this purpose is a public school 
and an opportunity to attend it. The mental strength of the immigrant is equal to 
that of native Americans. Their children acquire a knowledge of how to read and 
write the English language as readily as our own. The schools and colleges of the 
country show what the children of the immigrant can do when given a chance. The 


128 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


great trials which go to make character have produced in mankind a mental develop¬ 
ment rendering it comparatively easy to acquire an ordinary education. 

We would respectfully ask you, Mr. Chairman, to use your great influence in opposi¬ 
tion to this proposed unjust change in our present laws, to the proper enforcement of 
which we have no objection. In making this request of you we wish to assure you 
that we have given this matter the consideration that patriotic Americans should give 
to a matter that goes so deeply into what can be termed “the welfare of the country.” 

We offer in support of this conclusion the record of the enthusiasm and patriotism 
of the immigrants who have played such a great part in making this country what it is. 

We call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to a few of the important facts which we know: 

(1) Sixty-five per cent of the farmers owning farms and working as farm laborers are 
people who came from Europe during the last thirty years. 

(2) Of the 890,000 miners, mining the coal to operate the great industries, 630,000 
are our people. 

(3) Of the 580,000 steel and iron workers employed in the different plants through¬ 
out the United States, 69 per cent, according to the latest statistics of the steel and iron 
industries, are our people. 

(4) Ninety per cent of the labor employed for the last thirty years in building the 
railways has been furnished by our immigrant people, who are now keeping the same 
in repair. 

Mr. Chairman, these facts alone should convince any American citizen of the desira¬ 
bility of getting in the healthy and willing workers, in order to help develop this great 
country of ours. 

Louis N. Hammerling, President. 


The committee of editors was as follows: L. N. Hammerling, president American 
Association of Foreign Newspapers, chairman; E. M. Grella, Girnale Italiano, secretary; 
G. H. Berg, Nordstjernan, treasurer; F. L. Frugone, Bollettino della Sera; V. J. 
Valjavec, Glas Naroda; L. F. Wazeter, Tygodik Polski; N. A. Morkazel, Al-Hoda* 
D. J. Vlasto, Atlantis; Rev. C. L. Orbach, Slovak V. Amerike; Jos. A. Werwinski, 
Goniec Polski; N. Behar, National Liberal Immigration League; H. Berlin, Federa¬ 
tion of Jewish Organizations of New York State; Dr. A. Kozma, Szabadsag; Dr. Walter 
J. Briggs, Austria; Dr. E. L. Lucaciu, Romanul in America; Thomas Piptone, Italian 
Magazine; A. Capparucci, Opinione; John Vicario, Araldo Italiano; L. Kamaiky, 
Jewish Daily News; J. Sepermstein, Jewish Morning Journal; G. D. Berko, Amerikai 
Magyar Nepszava; L. E. Miller, Jewish Daily Warheit. 


The resolutions filed were: 

RESOLUTIONS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED AT A MEETING OF THE PUBLISHERS OF FOREIGN- 
LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF FOREIGN NEWSPAPERS, 
HELD AT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATION, WORLD BUILDING, NEW YORK, N. Y., ON 
THE 23D DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1910. 

Whereas immigration has been a great factor in populating the United States, 
developing its resources, and building up its manufacturing intertests; and 

Whereas immigrants are still needed in the development of the South and West, 
in furnishing labor to the manufacturing plants in the East, and in providing farm 
hands and domestic servants throughout the United States; and 

Whereas there are at present several bills before Congress, especially the Hayes 
and Overman bills, aiming at the restriction of immigration; and 
Whereas the immigration problem is mainly a problem of distributing aliens to 
sections of the country, mainly to farm districts, where their services are needed; and 
Whereas the Hayes bill, in addition to stringent restrictive measures, proposes also 
the repeal of sections 26 and 40 of the immigration act of 1907, which provide, respec¬ 
tively, for the admission under bond of certain aliens liable to deportation, and for the 
establishment of the Division of Information in the Department of Commerce and 
Labor, having for its purpose the proper distribution of aliens and unemployed; and 
Whereas the restrictive measures proposed in the above-mentioned bills" have for 
their purpose: 

(1) To provide an educational test, which in many instances would exclude strong 
and healthy laborers. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


129 


(2) An increase of the head tax. 

(3) Exclusion of all male aliens over 16 years of age who do not possess $25. 

(4) Exclusion of all unmarried or widowed females over 18 years of age who do 
not possess $25. 

(5) The requirement of a certificate of permission from the government of which 
the alien seeking admission to this country is a subject, which permission, owing 
to the known unwillingness of the European countries to lose their strong and healthy 
citizens, will rarely be given. 

Whereas if any or several of these restrictive measures should become law, immi¬ 
gration to this country will not be merely checked, but practically prohibited; and 

Whereas we stand unqualifiedly in favor of such legislation as has for its purpose 
the exclusion of morally and physically undesirable immigrants; and 

Whereas existing laws are sufficient in order to bar out undesirable aliens: Therefore 
be it 

Resolved , That the American Association of Foreign Newspapers, representing over 
300 newspapers of 24 foreign tongues published in the United States, protests against 
any further restriction of immigration, and against the passage of any act that will 
have for its purpose the abolition of the Division of Information, or any interference 
with it in any other way than to strengthen it and enlarge its powers; and be it further 

Resolved , That copies of these resolutions be presented to the President of the United 
States and to the Vice-President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives, to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and to the chairmen 
of the Committees on Immigration of the Senate and House of Representatives, by a 
specially designated delegation of the American Association of Foreign Newspapers. 


L. N. Hammerling, president American 
Association of Foreign Newspapers, 
New York, N. Y. 

Frank W. Misuraca, secretary American 
Association of Foreign Newspapers, 
New York, N. Y 

N. Behar, managing director National 
Liberal Immigration League, New 
York, N. Y. 

H. Berlin, financial secretary Federation 
of Jewish Organizations of New York 
State, New York, N. Y. 

B. Aquilano, La Follia di New York, 
Italian, New York, N. Y. 

V. J. Valjavec, Glas Naroda, Slovenic, 
New York, N. Y. 

Thomas Piptone, Italian Magazine, Ital¬ 
ian, New York, N. Y. 

Walter J. Briggs, Austria, Austrian, New 
York, N. Y. 

Dr. A. Kozma, Amerikai Magyar Nep- 
szava, Hungarian, New York, N. Y. 

A. A. Paryski, Ameryka Echo, Polish, 
Toledo, Ohio. 

John Welsand, Dziennik Polski, Polish, 
Detroit, Mich. 

Frank Bonczae, Straz, Polish, Scranton, 
Pa. 

John R. Palandech, United Servian, Ser¬ 
vian, Chicago, Ill. 

V. Terracciano, Forbice, Italian, Phila¬ 
delphia, Pa. 

A. B. Lange, Scandia, Norwegian-Danish, 
Chicago, Ill. 

J. V. Loanovici, America, Roumanian, 
Cleveland, Ohio. 

F. A. Toth, Slovenske Noviny, Slovak, 
Hazleton, Pa. 

P. S. Lambros, Greek Star, Greek, Chi¬ 
cago, Ill. 

C. Ebbesw, Ostems Harold, Swedish, 
New Britain, Conn. 

49090—10-9 


M. Mastrogiovanni, Patria, Italian, Chi¬ 
cago, Ill. 

J. A. Harpet, New York Uutiset, Finnish, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 

J. Bruno, Mastro Paolo, Italian, Phila¬ 
delphia, Pa. 

W. Molesynski, Gazeta Buffaloska, Pol¬ 
ish, Buffalo, N. Y. 

M. Vivag, Szabad Sajto, Hungarian, Pas¬ 
saic, N. J. 

C. Thurstone, Skandia, Swedish, James¬ 
town, N. Y. 

V. Talamini, La Liberta, Italian, Prov¬ 
idence, R. I. 

K. Obecny, Gazeta Tygodniowa, Polish, 
Schenectady, N. Y. 

J. Lussie, La Justice, French, Holyoke, 
Mass. 

J. S. Bernier, Avenir National, French, 
Manchester, N. H. 

O. Thibault, LTndependant, French, 
Fall River, Mass. 

G. Boberg, Svenska Tribunen-Nyheter, 
Swedish, Chicago, Ill. 

S. R. Guarino, Libero Pensiero, Italian, 
Birmingham, Ala. 

M. J. Knape, Texas Posten, Swedish, 
Austin, Tex. 

J. Stehlik, Slavie, Bohemian, Racine, 
Wis. 

S. A. Xanthaky, Panhellenic, Greek, 
New York, N. Y. 

V. G. Nowak, Czas, Polish, Brooklyn, 

N. Y. 

H. Chiariglione, Unione, Italian, Pueblo, 
Colo. 

F. Lepore, Nazione, Italian, Denver, 
Colo. 

P. Olbi, Roma, Italian, Denver, Colo. 

L. C. Frank, New Yorske Listy, Bohe~ 
mian, New York, N. Y. 




130 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


P. 0. Thorfon, Normanden, Norwegian- 
Danish, Grand Forks, N. Dak. 

G. Mapelli, Capitale, Italian, Denver, 
Colo. 

A. Novak, Domacnost, Bohemian, Mil¬ 
waukee, Wis. 

A. Steele, Svensk-Amerikanska Western, 
Swedish, Denver, Colo. 

T. Passerini, Sole, Italian, Bridgeport, 
Conn. 

Vac. Buresh, Cesko-Americky Farmer, 
Bohemian, Omaha, Nebr. 

Yac. Buresh, Pokrok Zapadu, Bohemian, 
Omaha, Nebr. 

Yac. Buresh, Cretesky Pokrok, Bohe¬ 
mian, Crete, Nebr. 

Yac. Buresh, Kansasky Pokrok, Bohe¬ 
mian, Wilson, Kans. 

Vac. Buresh, Pokrok, Bohemian, Schuy¬ 
ler, Nebr. 

Yac. Buresh, Dakotsky Pokrok, Bohe¬ 
mian, Tyndall, S. Dak. 

Yac. Buresh, Iowsky Pokrok, Bohemian, 
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 

Vac. Buresh, Minnesotsky Pokrok, Bohe¬ 
mian, St. Paul, Minn. 

A. G. Johnson, Svenska Folkets Tidning, 
Swedish, Minneapolis, Minn. 

J. S. Kruszka, Dziennik Narodowy, 
Polish, Chicago, Ill. 

L. Terrone, II Vesuvio, Italian, Phila¬ 
delphia, Pa. 

€. J. Pearson, Skandinavia, Swedish, 
Worcester, Mass. 

F. A. Sueuson, Kansas City Tribunen, 
Swedish, Kansas City, Mo. 

A. Xuijo, Paivalehti, Finnish, Calumet, 
Mich. 

L. B. Haduch, Wielkopolanin, Polish, 
Pittsburg, Pa. 

E. Ljima, Luce, Italian, Utica, N. Y. 

A. Xuijo, Amerikan Uutiset, Finnish, 
Calumet, Micb. 

K. W. Bartos, Hospodar, Bohemian, 
Omaha, Nebr. 

K. W. Bartos, Cesko Slovansky Obzor, 
Bohemian, Omaha, Nebr. 

K. W. Bartos, Osveta Americka, Bohe¬ 
mian, Omaha, Nebr. 

F. Marta, La Nostra Terra, Italian, Hur- 
lev, Wis. 

K. W. Bartos, Kansaske Rozhledy, Bohe¬ 
mian, Wilson, Kans. 

K. W. Bartos, Minnesotske Noviny, Bo¬ 
hemian, St. Paul, Minn. 

K. W. Bartos, Cesky Obzor, Bohemian, 
Omaha, Nebr. 

K. W. Bartos, Wilberske Listy, Bohe¬ 
mian, Omaha, Nebr. 

K. W. Bartos, Rozhledy, Bohemian, Oma¬ 
ha, Nebr. 

R. Benedetto, Sentinella del West Vir¬ 
ginia, Italian, Thomas, W. Va. 

G. Gallina, Sentinella, Italian, Hoboken, 
N. J. 

S. J. Turnblad, Svenska Amerikanska 
Posten, Swedish, Minneapolis, Minn. 


J. Anderson, Skandinaven, Norwegian- 
Danish, Chicago, Ill. 

F. E. Chudotsik, Katolicke Slovenske 
Noviny, Slovak, Chicago, Ill. 

W. Wolizynski. Polonia, Polish, Detroit, 
Mich.' 

Prof. C. Baucia, II Vessillo, Italian, Balti¬ 
more, Md. 

M. S. Paruch, No winy Polske, Polish, 
Milwaukee, Wis. 

M. S. Paruch, Tygodnik Polski, Polish, 
Milwaukee, Wis. 

W. Missell, Wedrowiec, Polish, Buffalo, 

N. Y. 

S. Michelson, Keleivis, Lithuanian, Bos¬ 
ton, Mass. 

C. F. Settoske, Telegraf, Polish, Chicago, 
Ill. 

C. Giore, Montagna, Italian, Newark, N. J. 

S. Bulsiewiez, Kronika, Polish, Newark, 

N. J. 

P. Matullo, Ora, Italian, Newark, N. J. 

M.- A. Pacilli, Internazionale, Italian, 
Schenectady, N. Y. 

J. Lunghino, Corriere Italiano, Italian, 
Buffalo, N. Y. 

W. Boczkowski, Saule, Lithuanian, Ma- 
hanoy City, Pa. 

J. Lanzella, Risveglio Coloniale, Italian, 
Svracuse, N. Y. 

B. Mazzotta, Gazzetta di Paterson, Ital¬ 
ian, Paterson, N. J. 

F. Curzm, Eco del Rhode Island, Italian, 
Providence, R. I. 

M. Kenningsen, Nordlyset, Norwegian- 
Danish, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

J. A. Di Silvestro, Voce del Popolo, 
Italian, Philadelphia, Pa. 

H. Hammerstad, Nordisk Tidende, Nor- 
wegian-Danish, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

V. Scalco, Maschere, Italian, Baltimore, 
Md. 

J. Slik, Polak Amerykanski, Polish, Buf¬ 
falo, N. Y. 

A. Truhow, Svea, Swedish, Worcester, 
Mass. 

A. Sordi, Nostri Tempi, Italian, Pitts¬ 
burg, Pa. 

J. Donnarumo, Gazzetta del Mass, Italian, 
Boston, Mass. 

Wm. Wendt, Przyjaciel Ludu, Polish, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

G. H. Berg, Nordstjernan, Swedish, New 
York, N. Y. 

E. M. Grella, Giornale Italiano, Italian, 
New York, N. Y. 

E. Cantelmo, Cronaca Illustrata, Italian, 
New York, N. Y. 

E. Cantelmo, Vita Internazionale, Italian 
New York, N. Y. 

J. Horvath, Szabdsag, Hungarian, Cleve¬ 
land, Ohio. 

D. J. Vlasto, Atlantis, Greek, New York, 
N. Y. 

F. L. Frugone, Bollettione della Sera, 
Italian, New York, N. Y. 








HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


131 


N. A. Mokarzel, Al-Hoda, Arabic, New 
York, N. Y. 

C. L. Orbach, Slovak V. Amerike, Slovak, 
New York, N. Y. 

L. F. Wazeter, Tygodnik Polski, Polish, 
New York, N. Y. 

E. Lucaciu, Romanul in America, Rou¬ 
manian, New York, N. Y. 

D. B. Terzakis, Metanastis, Greek, Bos¬ 
ton, Mass. 

D. B. Popovich, Balkan, Servian, Chi¬ 
cago, Ill. 

John Yicario, Araldo Italiano, Italian, 
New York, N. Y. 


John Vicario, Telegrafo, Italian, New 
York, N. Y. 

John Yicario, Corriere della Sera, Italian, 
New York, N. Y. 

A. Capparucci, Opinione, Italian, Phila¬ 
delphia, Pa. 

John Cottone, Pensiero, Italian, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

Frank Mancini, Risveglio, Italian, Den¬ 
ver, Colo. 

T. Sandegren, Puget Sound Posten, Swe¬ 
dish, Tacoma, Wash. 

John Haluska, Slovensko-Americky Za- 
bavnik, Slovak, Chicago, Ill. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives. 

In response to the request of the chairman of the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization, the following letter was received 
from the Treasury Department relative to the sums collected as 
“head tax:” 


Treasury Department, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, February 17, 1910. 

Hon. Benjamin F. Howell, 

Chairman Comrfdttee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives. 

Sir: In reply to your communication of the 15th instant requesting information 
relative to the amount received from head tax upon aliens entering the United States 
since June 30, 1906, I have the honor to advise you as follows: 


Year. 

Head tax. 

Fiscal year 1907 (July 1,1906, to June 30,1907). 

$2,778,716.99 
3,376,548.99 
3,257,236.00 
1,730,260.00 
218,927.21 

Fiscal year 1908 (July 1, 1907, to June 30,1908). 

Fiscal year 1909 (July 1, 1908, to June 30,1909). 

Fiscal year 1910 (6 months, July 1, 1909, to Dec. 31, 1909). 

Month of January, 1910. 



From other sources there was paid into the Treasury under the laws relating to 
immigration, as follows: 


Year. 

Immigration 

fines. 

Exclusive 

privileges. 

Fiscal year 1907.». 

$48,140.10 
38,863.00 
35,558.06 
21,041.00 
8,320.00 


Fiscal year 1908. 

$12,348.58 

12,240.55 

7,050.71 

1,067.44 

Fiscal year 1909. 

TT'ispfll ypsir 1010 (6 months)______ 

Month of January, 1910. 



These figures represent the receipts as covered into the Treasury upon data fur¬ 
nished by depositors when certificates of deposit are issued. They differ slightly 
from the results obtained from the subsequent settlement and adjustment of the ac¬ 
counts by the Auditor for the State and other Departments, made upon later advices 
received by him exhibiting the definite source of the deposits having final audit. 

Respectfully, 

Charles D. Norton, Acting Secretary. 





























132 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


The following letter was also received on the same subject from 
the Department of Commerce and Labor, with accompanying tables, 
giving statistics for the years 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909: 


Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington , February 28, 1910. 

My Dear Mr. Howell: In accordance with the wishes of your committee, ex¬ 
pressed to me verbally and in your letter of the 15th instant, I have to transmit the 
following: 

(1) A statement showing the balance of the immigrant fund July 1, 1905; the sums 
collected from head tax, exclusive privileges, and immigration fines; the repayments 
to the fund from all sources; and the cost of maintaining the Immigration Service at 
large and the Immigration Commission during the fiscal years 1906, 1907, 1908, and 
1909. 

(2) A statement of the appropriations charged against the ‘‘immigrant fund” be¬ 
tween July 1, 1905, and June 30, 1909, as provided by the acts of Congress cited in the 
statement; the disbursements from each of these appropriations and the balance 


remaining in each February 23, 1910. 

(3) An analysis of the balance of the “immigrant fund ” February 23, 1910. 

(4) A statement showing the total number of aliens coming into the United States 
during the fiscal years 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909; the number exempted from the 
payment of head tax admitted during these years, pursuant to law, and showing sepa¬ 
rately those admitted without the payment of head tax under rule 2 (D) of the immi¬ 
gration regulations; the number taxed during these years and the amount of collections 
for each of these years. 

Attention is invited to the fact that in the statement for the years 1906 and 1907 
aliens debarred are included with the aliens arriving in the United States during these 
years, and are not referred to in the tables for the fiscal years 1908 and 1909. This was 
done because during the first two years the head tax was collected on those debarred, 
a practice not prevailing since July 1, 1907. 

(5) A copy of the opinion of the solicitor of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
dated October 20, 1907, as to whether, by the terms of the immigration act of February 
20, 1907, head tax should be collected on account of aliens coming to the United 
States from Canada, Newfoundland, Cuba, and Mexico, in cases (1) where citizens 
or residents of the countries named, legally domiciled therein, seek to enter the 
United States after July 1, 1907, and it appears that during the year immediately 
preceding such entrance the continuity of their physical presence at their place of 
domicile was broken by one or more visits to the United States, or to some other 
country, and (2) where citizens of the countries named, legally domiciled in the 
United States, having returned to the country of their citizenship after July 1, 1907, 
seek to reenter the United States, the place of their domicile, before the period of a 
full year has intervened between the date of their departure from and the date of 
their return to the United States. 

Your attention is especially invited to the fact that this opinion has received the 
personal approval of Attorney-General Wickersham. 

The collections on account of head tax shown in these statements, and taken from 
the records of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, agree with the accounts 
of the customs officers and immigration officers collecting head tax, as audited by the 
Auditor for the State and other Departments, with the exception of $490.48. This 
difference is partly due to the collection of $265.66 from the official receiver and liqui¬ 
dator of the Canadian Lines (Limited), on account of $376 due the United ‘States as 
head tax at the time of the failure of the Canadian Lines (Limited), and small adjust¬ 
ments found to be necessary in the audit of the accounts. 

^ Under the system of accounting, officers receiving public moneys from individuals, 
corporations, or from other sources must account for such receipts in the month in 
which they were received and receipted for. The public depositaries issue “certifi¬ 
cates of deposit” to public officers for public moneys on the day that such moneys are 
actually received by the depositaries. The date of the certificate of deposit is the 
record of receipt of the money in the Treasury, and the record on which the “warrant” 
directing the placing of the money on the ledgers of the Treasury is issued and the 
date of issue of the “warrant” determines the fiscal year to be charged with the 
receipts. 

Under this practice moneys are accounted for by receiving officers and audited as 
of one year and actually received in another year, when the accounting is in the 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 133 


last month of one fiscal year and “warrants” issued in the first month of the succeed¬ 
ing fiscal year. 

As moneys formally paid into the Treasury of the United States can not be with¬ 
drawn without a specific appropriation for their withdrawal, as provided by Article 
I, section 9, clause 7, of the Constitution of the United States, it is necessary in con¬ 
nection with the collection of head tax to have collectors of customs and immigration 
officers receiving such tax to open special deposit accounts with the government 
depositaries for the receipt of money to be held until the question of the right of the 
Government thereto is determined. Moneys placed in special deposit accounts are 
subject to the checks of the receiving officer making the deposits, as such funds have 
not been acknowledged by the depositary with a certificate of deposit. 

A special deposit account is essential in the immigrant head-tax collections in 
cases of aliens in transit and pending before boards of special inquiry as to admission, 
because if the transient aliens leave the country within sixty days the head tax must 
be refunded, and if deported the collections must be refunded. 

In many cases application is never made for a refund of head tax, and the money 
is frequently deposited in the Treasury of the United States in a year subsequent to 
that in w r hich it was actually received by the collectors of customs or immigration 
officers. 


The explanations account for a net difference of $22,870.91 between the audited 
accounts for the four years hereinbefore referred to and the “covering-in warrants” 
based on “certificates of deposit” issued and dated within the period. 

The differences between the amount due, as shown by audited accounts and by 
“covering-in warrants” issued on “certificates of deposit,” will continue until the 
account of head tax is finally audited and closed by discontinuance of the account. 
Respectfully, 

Benj. S. Cable, Acting Secretary. 

Hon. Benjamin F. Howell, 

Chairman Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives. 


The tables prepared by Mr. William L. Soleau, disbursing clerk, 
Department of Commerce and Labor, follow: 


Statement showing the balance of the immigrant fund Julyl, 1905; the sums collected from 
head tax, exclusive privileges, and immigration fines; the repayments to the fund from all 
sources; and the cost of maintaining the Immigration Service at large and the Immigration 
Commission during the fiscal years 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909. 



1906. 

1907. 

1908. 

1909. 

Total. 

RECEIPTS. 






Balance, immigrant fund, July 
1,1905. 





$1,638,734.58 
11,706,596.91 
24,586.13 
153,298.95 

Collections on account of head tax 
On account of exclusive privileges 
On account of immigration fines. 

$2,294,094.93 

$2,778,716.99 

$3,376,548.99 
12,345.58 

$3,257,236.00 
12,240.55 
35,558.06 

30,737. 79 

48,140.10 

38,863.00 

REPAYMENTS TO FUND. 






On account of one-half cost of 
inland transportation of aliens 
to be deported. 

367.14 

590.68 

1,945.30 

2,833.87 

104,097.27 

2,332.85 

5,736.99 

603,730.85 

On account of care and detention 
of aliens. 

93,206.37 

1,449.30 

177,751.85 

2, 466.01 

228,675.36 

2,525.70 

On account of ice, laundry, and 
telephone service. 

8,773.86 

5,506. 24 

41,179. 40 

On account of balance of appro¬ 
priation “ Steel twin-screw fer¬ 
ryboat,” Ellis Island, N. Y... 

5,506.24 

41,179.40 

On account of balance of appro¬ 
priation. “Repairs, etc., prop¬ 
erty at Ellis Island, N. Y.”... 







Total 





14,188,143.91 




























134 HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 

Statement showing the balance the immigrant fund July 1, 1905; the sums collected from 

head tax, etc. —Continued. 



1906. 1907. 

1908. 

1909. 

Total. 

EXPENDITURES. 

Since July 1, 1909, on account of 
liabilities incurred in prior 
years. 





$237,956. 66 

7,640,037.23 

524,175. 78 

Salaries and expenses in enforc¬ 
ing the immigration laws, ex¬ 
clusive of the Chinese-exclu- 
sion laws, and salaries of bu¬ 
reau at seat of government. 

Warrants in favor of the Immi¬ 
gration Commission, author¬ 
ized by act of Feb. 20, 1907 (34 
Stats., 909). 

01,602,796.76 

$1,805,544.73 

$2,194,855. 61 

$2,036,840.13 

. 

Total. 









8,402,169.67 

0 5,785,974.24 

Balance of receipts, for disposi¬ 
tion of which see accompany¬ 
ing analysis. 











a The salaries of officers and employees in the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization at the seat of 
government were specially appropriated for from the immigrant fund and are included in the accom¬ 
panying statement of appropriations charged against the fund. For the four years these appropriations 
amounted to $220,040. This sum should be deducted from the above balance when this statement is 
separately considered, leaving the balance of the immigrant fund, $5,565,934.24. 


Appropriations charged against the immigrant fund between July 1, 1905, and June SO, 

1909, as provided by acts of Congress cited. 


Immigrant station, Ellis Island, N. Y. 

Sundry civil act, Mar. 3, 1905. 

Urgent deficiency act, Dec. 19,1906. 

Sundry civil act, Mar. 4,1907. 

Deficiency act, Feb. 15, 1908. 

Deficiency act, May 30,1908. 

Sundry civil act, May 27,1908. 

Immigrant station, San Francisco, Cal. 

Sundry civil act, Mar. 3,1905. 

Sundry civil act, June 30,1906. 

Immigrant station, Charleston, S. C. 

Public act, Mar. 4, 1907. 

Immigrant station, Galveston, Tex. 

Public act, Mar. 4, 1907. 

Immigrant station, New Orleans, La. 

Public act, Mar. 4,1907. 

Immigrant station, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Public act, Feb. 6,1908. 

Ferry steamer, Immigration Service, San Francisco, Cal.. 

Sundry civil act, May 27, 1908. 

Boarding cutter, Immigration Service, San Francisco, Cal 
Sundry civil act, May 27,1908. 

Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service. 

Sundry civil act, June 30, 1906. 

Sundry civil act, Mar. 4,1907. 

Deficiency act, Feb. 15,1908. 

Sundry civil act, May 27, 1908. 

Pay, assistant attorneys in naturalization cases. 

Sundry civil act, May 27,1908. 

Enforcing Chinese exclusion laws. 

Sundry civil act, June 30,1906. 

Sundry civil act, Mar. 4,1907. 

Sundry civil act, May 27,1908. 

Salaries, Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization. 

Legislative act, I- eb. 3, 1905. 

Legislative act, June 22,1906. 

Legislative act, Feb. 26,1907. 

Legislative act, May 22,1908. 


Appropria¬ 

tions. 

Disburse¬ 

ments. 

Balance. 

$1,518,000.00 

$1,424,776. 21 

$93,223.79 

200,000.00 

200,000.00 


70,000.00 


70,000.00 

70,000.00 

10,801.63 

59,198.37 

70,000.00 


70,000.00 

250,000.00 


250,000.00 

115,000.00 

13.91 

114,986.09 

25,000.00 

22,000.00 

3,000.00 

460,000. 00 

460,000.00 


150,000.00 

150,000.00 


1,500,000.00 

1,300,683. 64 

199,316. 36 

220,040. 00 

180,526. 80 

39,513.20 

4,648,040. 00 

3,748,802.19 

899,237.81 


Total 



















































HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


135 


Analysis of balance of immigrant f und shown in accompanying statement. 

Balance of immigrant fund after deducting operating expenses to June 30,1909.$5,785,974.24 

Deficiency appropriation act of March 4,1909. 600,000. 00 


Total available to settle liabilities incurred and chargeable prior to June 30,1909. 6.385,974.24 

Deducted from the immigrant fund by operation of law: 

As per statement of special appropriations herewith.$4,648,040. 00 

To miscellaneous receipts— 

Fiscal year 1908 (head-tax collections in excess of $2,500,000). 927,760.57 

Fiscal year 1909 (head-tax collections in excess of $2,500,000). 805,034.61 

- 6,380,835. IS 


Balance. 5,139.06 

Balance of permanent indefinite appropriation February 23,1910. 1,062.29 


included in their accounts for that fiscal year for which certificates of deposit were 

not issued prior to July 1,1905, by depositaries. a 4,076.88 


Note. —The approved vouchers now on file in the Secretary’s office for payment from the appropriation 
‘Expenses of regulating immigration” (immigrant fund) aggregate $24,640.44. 

An estimate of appropriation in the urgent deficiency estimates is now pending in Congress. 

Statement showing the number of aliens admitted to the United States during the fiscal years 
1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909, the number exempt from payment of head tax, the number 
paying head tax, and the amount of head tax collected, as shown by the records of the 
Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization. 



1906. 

1907. 

Immigrant aliens admitted. 

1,100,735 

1,285,349 

Nonimmigrant aliens admitted. 

65,618 

153,126 

Aliens debarred. 

12,432 

13,064 

Deserting alien seamen. 

9,636 

9,495 

Pending from previous year. 

21,741 

28,215 


1,210,162 

1,489,243 

Aliens exempt from payment of head tax: 



In transit. 

31,705 

41,070 

Citizens of Cuba. 

6,963 

8,480 

Citizens of British North America and 



Mexico from countries other than Brit- 



ish North America and Mexico. 

2,690 

2,425 


41,358 

51,975 

Cases pending settlement at close of fiscal 



year. 

28,215 

52,566 


- 69,573 

104,541 

Number of aliens taxed at $2 per head. 

1,140,589 

1,384,702 

Head tax collected during the year. 

$2,281,178 

$2,769,404 


1908. 

1909. 


Immigrant aliens admitted.. . 

Nonimmigrant aliens admitted. 

Deserting alien seamen. 

Aliens from Porto Rico and Hawaii 
Pending from previous } r ear. 


782,870 
141,825 
6,802 | 
480 
52,566 


751,786 

192,449 

3,181 

562 

21,705 


Aliens exempt from payment of head tax: 

In transit... . 

One-year residents of Cuba 
One-year residents of British North 

America and Mexico. 

Rule 2 (d) Immigration Regulations.... 

Government officials. 

Arrivals in Hawaii. 

Arrivals in Porto Rico. 

Cases pending settlement at close of fiscal 
year. 

Number of aliens taxed at $2 per head. 

Number of aliens taxed at $4 per head. 


984,543 


38,345 

4,480 


32,213 
3,255 
108 
10,851 
2,629 • 

- 91,881 


21,705 

- 113,586 

52,566 

818,391 


969,683 

33,465 
7,098 

62,801 

6,877 

338 

2,407 

2,546 

- 115,532 

40.539 

-- 156,071 


Total. . 

Head tax collected during the year 


870,957 870,957 

$3,378,696 


813,612 

$3,254,448 


o In such cases the “Covering in warrants” are credited to the fiscal years in which the certificates of 
deposits are issued and the receiving officers include such receipts in their accounts for the fiscal years in 
which the moneys are received. 





















































































136 HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Statement showing the number of aliens admitted to the United States during the fiscal years 
1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909, ^.--Continued. 

RECAPITULATION. 



Head tax col¬ 
lected. 

Number 

taxed. 

Number 

exempt. 

Number 
unsettled 
close of fis¬ 
cal year. 

Total. 

1906. 

$2,281,178.00 
2,769,404.00 
3,378,696.00 
3,254,448.00 

1,140,589 
1,384,702 
870,957 
813,612 

41,358 

51,975 

28,215 

1,210,162 

1907. 

52,566 

1,489,243 

1908. 

91,881 

115,532 

21,705 

984,543 

1909. 

40,539 

969,683 


Total. 

11,683,726.00 

4,209,860 

300,746 

143,025 

4,653,631 



There was also submitted from the Department of Commerce and 
Labor the following letter from Mr. Charles Earl, the solicitor for the 
department, which was approved by Hon. George W. Wickersham, 
the Attorney-General: 

October 30, 1907. 

The Secretary op Commerce and Labor., 

Sir: My opinion is requested as to whether, by the terms of the immigration act of 
February 20, 1907, head tax should be collected on account of aliens coming to the 
United States from Canada, Newfoundland, Cuba, and Mexico, under the following 
circumstances: 

1. Where citizens or residents of the countries named, legally domiciled therein, 
seek to enter the United States after July 1, 1907, and where it appears that, during 
the year immediately preceding such entrance, the continuity of their physical 
presence at their place of domicile was broken by one or more visits to the United 
States or to some other country. 

2. Where citizens of the countries named, legally domiciled in the United States, 
having returned to the country of their citizenship after July 1, 1907, seek to reenter 
the United States, the place of their domicile, before the period of a full year has 
intervened between the date of their departure from and the date of their return to the 
United States. 

Before considering the text of the present statute it is important to refer to the 
previous law on the subject, for the prior law is, in the words of Coke, “ the very lock 
and key to set open the windows of the statute/’ (2 Inst., 308.) The immigration 
act of March 3, 1903, provided for the collection of a head tax on account of “every 
passenger not a citizen of the United States, or of the Dominion of Canada, the Repub¬ 
lic of Cuba, or of the Republic of Mexico, who shall come” to the United States. 
Newfoundland was added to this list by the act of March 22, 1904. Until this law 
was superseded by the present act, therefore, head tax was never collected from a 
citizen of any of the countries specified. In repealing and reenacting the prior law 
with reference to the collection of head tax the present act provided for the payment 
of the tax “for every alien entering the United States,” and, further, “that the 
said tax shall not be levied upon aliens who shall enter the United States after an 
uninterrupted residence of at least one year immediately preceding such entrance 
in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Cuba, or the Republic 
of Mexico.” 

The committee of the House, in reporting the measure containing the phraseology 
last quoted, said, in explanation of the changes made: 

“Referring to the last proviso of this section, after consultation with the State 
Department, it was thought advisable by your committee to make domicile rather 
than citizenship the test for exemption fr<?m the head tax.” 

The purpose of Congress, therefore, in altering the terms of the exemption in the 
manner noted, was to provide that whereas, theretofore persons who were citizens of 
neighboring countries were exempt from head tax, thereafter not only citizens of those 
countries, but also persons domiciled therein, should be exempt from this exaction. 
The object, then, was not to narrow the exemption, but to enlarge it. Citizens had all 
along been exempt; it was now proposed to make not only citizens, but bona fide 
residents likewise exempt. Lest, however, a colorable or merely pretended residence 
8 hould be availed of by persons other than citizens of the countries named, for the 





















HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 137 

purpose of evading the tax, it was provided that they should be exempt only “after 
an uninterrupted residence of at least one year.” 

It will be recalled that the House committee stated that the terms of the exemption 
were altered “after consultation with the State Department.” The Secretary of 
State, of whom inquiry was made, has advised the Secretary of this department that 
he was personally present in conference with the House Committee on Immigration 
when they considered this subject; that the intention of Congress in making the change 
was “to enlarge the exemption from payment of head tax, in order to facilitate free 
intercommunication between the United States and our immediate neighbors;” that 
“there was no room for question that the purpose of making the change was to make 
it possible for people who were domiciled in Canada, Mexico, etc., although not 
citizens of those countries, to pass to and fro over the border; ” and that, in his opinion, 
* 1 the construction of the new statute should be that the residence mentioned in section 
1 of the act of February 20, 1907, is legal residence or domicile, and not actual physical 
presence, just as you and I both have our legal residence or domicile in the State of 
New York, notwithstanding our physical presence in Washington; ” and he adds, “this 
construction, I think, is in accordance with the intent of the act.” 

The phrase “uninterrupted residence,” accordingly, becomes the equivalent of 
residence or domicile uninterrupted by the acquisition of a legal domicile elsewhere. 
And since a legal domicile is not lost, nor a new one acquired, by occasional visits 
abroad, or temporary sojourns in other places, a person who can show a bona fide 
residence or domicile of a year or more in one of the countries specified, uninterrupted 
otherwise than by occasional and temporary absences of the character mentioned, is 
entitled to the benefit of the exemption. That this interpretation fully accords with 
the intention of Congress can scarcely be questioned. “A thing may be within the 
letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning though not 
within its letter” (23 Wall., 374, 380). The letter of the present statute prescribes 
an “uninterrupted residence of at least one year,” and is, therefore, capable of being 
interpreted to require an uninterrupted period of physical presence in one place of 
abode, but the meaning of the statute, as stated by those who framed it, and as vouched 
for by the head of the department who advised it, if it is to have the beneficial effect 
intended, requires that it be given the interpretation above suggested. “Residence” 
and “domicile” may often properly be distinguished (Brisenden v. Chamberlain, 53 
Fed., 307, 311), but are frequently regarded as synonvmous, and are generally so 
regarded with respect to the subject of voting, eligibility to office, taxation, juris¬ 
diction in divorce, and probate administration (People v. Platt, 3 N. Y., Supp., 367, 
369). They were evidently regarded as synonymous by the framers of the present 
act, for one word was used in the report of the committee and the other in the law. 

The phrase “uninterrupted residence” may therefore be held to mean “unin¬ 
terrupted domicile or residence.” And the word “uninterrupted,” in its turn, may 
with equal propriety be taken to preclude an interruption of domicile or residence 
of the kind intended by the act. Thus in construing a telephone contract which 
provided for a service not interrupted otherwise than by the negligence of the sub¬ 
scriber it was held that an interruption of service within the meaning of the con¬ 
tract was “an interruption of the kind of service contracted for.” (Telephone Co. 
v. Porter, 43 S. E., 441, 442.) The kind of domicile or residence intended by the 
present act is, as has been shown, a legal domicile or a bona fide residence, and, clearly, 
a domicile or residence of this character is not “interrupted” by occasional, tem¬ 
porary, and transient absences from the usual place of abode. (Daubman v. Camden, 
39 N. J. Law, 57, 59.) 

It is therefore concluded that head tax should not be collected on account of 
aliens entering the United States after July 1, 1907, from Canada, Newfoundland, 
Cuba, or Mexico, whose legal domicile or bona fide residence was in one of the coun¬ 
tries specified for at least one year immediately preceding such entrance, if it merely 
appears that the continuity of their physical presence at their place of residence or 
domicile was broken by one or more transient and temporary departures therefrom. 

2. “The preexisting law and the reasons and purpose of the new enactment,” says 
the Supreme Court, “are considerations of grea,t weight.” (23 Wall., 374, 380.) By 
the previous law citizens of neighboring countries were exempt from payment of head 
tax. It is true that the previous law has been repealed, but it is still proper to resort 
to it as affording a legislative exposition of the features of it which are retained. (3 
Wall., 495, 513; 109 U. S., 556, 561.) There is nothing, then, in the new enactment 
which discloses any intention to exact the head tax from persons who were then 
exempt; on the other hand, the very difference between the old enactment and the 
new manifests an intention to continue the exemption in favor of those already relieved 
and to extend it so as to cover others besides. By making “domicile rather than citi¬ 
zenship the test for exemption,” no other purpose could have been entertained. 


138 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Domicile as a qualification comprehends a larger class of persons than citizenship; in 
general, and as ordinarily applied, it includes the class comprehended by citizenship, 
and includes also a class in addition. It is only in the few scattered and exceptional 
cases where domicile and citizenship do not coincide that the former qualification 
does not imply the latter. It may safely be presumed that the occurrence of instances 
of this exceptional character was not foreseen, else they would have been expressly 
provided for. “In the nature of things statutes can not be so framed as, by express 
exemption, to provide for every possible unforeseen, and even foreseen, case thereafter 
to arise, which, while within the terms of their main provisions, is still outside of their 
spirit and purpose. And what can not be done the.courts should understand as not 
having been attempted.” (Bishop, Written Laws, 236.) 

In the practical execution of the law, therefore, shall it be said that these anomalous 
and exceptional cases were not intended to be covered by the broad terms of an exemp¬ 
tion which, apart from peculiar circumstances, would clearly embrace them? A 
citizen of Canada, for example, whose permanent residence and domicile is in the 
United States, journeys to Canada, where he remains for less than a year, and then 
returns to the United States; does the act require the collection of head tax in his 
case? It is to be noted that when this person first entered the United States he was 
relieved of payment of head tax by the express provision of the law then in force, 
and, further, that had the present law been in force at that time he would still have 
been exempt from such payment, and, yet further, that were he now entering the 
United States for the first time he would still again be exempt from the requirement 
in question, and, further still, were he to extend his visit beyond a year he would be 
again exempt. What, then, is the change that has taken place in his status? Only 
that he has acquired a residence and domicile in the United States. What is there 
in the reason for the present enactment which would exclude such persons from the 
benefit of the exemption? The imposition of the head tax is not a revenue measure, 
but a regulation of immigration and is designed to create a fund to defray the expenses 
of administering the immigration laws (112 U. S., 580); and the purpose of the pres¬ 
ent exemption is to facilitate social and commercial intercommunication between 
this and neighboring countries by relieving citizens or residents of such countries 
passing to and fro between their own country and this of the burden of paying a 
tax upon immigrants. This motive is as potent in the case of a citizen of a neighbor¬ 
ing country domiciled in the United States as it is in the case of such a citizen domi¬ 
ciled in his own country. If domicile in his own countrv is a good ground for the 
exemption of such a citizen, domicile in the United States is so in no slighter degree. 

It can not be supposed that Congress intended to penalize visits of a citizen and 
former resident of Canada to his own country while encouraging visits of Canadian 
residents to this country. This would be putting a premium on residence in Canada, 
and at the same time discriminating against residence in the United States. 

This much, in any event, would seem to be clear, namely, where a person is admitted 
to the United States for the first time, after a showing of the required previous residence 
of one year in one of the countries specified, and where, therefore, the exemption has 
once attached, the benefit of the exemption is a continuing one, and he may afterwards 
go back and forth without being subject to the tax; and scarcely less clear, it is believed, 
is the case of a citizen of one of the countries specified, who has acquired a residence or 
domicile in the United States prior to the passage of the present act, and who subse¬ 
quently goes to his own country for a visit, and returns to the United States within a 
year. Since he has become one of the population of the United States, it may be 
doubted whether he needs any exemption—whether, in other words, the head-tax 
provision applies to him at all. But if it does apply to him, then it is thought that 
he may, for the reasons given, be brought either within the operation of the exemption 
stated or within the operation of a further exemption contained in the same section 
of the statute. The section provides, not merely that the tax shall not be levied upon 
aliens “who shall enter the United States after an uninterrupted residence of at least 
one year immediately preceding such entrance,” in neighboring countries, but that it 
shall not be levied “upon otherwise admissible residents of any possession of the United 
States.” So to construe the latter clause is merely to give to residence or domicile in 
the United States, in the case of citizens of the countries specified, the benefit of the 
same advantages which the law accords to residence or domicile in neighboring coun¬ 
tries. Ordinarily, of course, the exemption embodied in the clause last quoted implies 
that head tax was paid on account of such aliens at the time of their original admis¬ 
sion to a possession of the United States, and hence the provision of rule 2, section ( d) 
of the Immigration Regulations; but the exemption contained in the previous clause 
expressly relieves residents of the countries in question of the obligation of such 
payment. In the case of residents of these countries, therefore, the implication of 
previous payment does not arise, nor does the rule apply. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


139 


It is accordingly further concluded that head tax should not be collected on account 
of aliens reentering the United States after July 1, 1907, from Canada, Newfoundland, 
Cuba, or Mexico, who are citizens thereof, but who have acquired a legal domicile or 
bona fide residence in the United States, and who are returning from a visit to one of 
the said countries, notwithstanding that the period of a full year has not intervened 
between the date of their departure from and the date of their return to the United 
States. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Charles Earl, Solicitor. 

Approved: 

Geo. W. Wickersham, Attorney-General. 





HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday , March 1, 1910. 

The committee this day met, Hon. Benjamin F. Howell, chairman, 
presiding. 

Others present were Representatives Elvins, Goldfogle, Edwards, 
Bennet, of New York, Hayes, Kiistermann, and Sabath. 

The Chairman. We will hear Mr. Campbell. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD K. CAMPBELL, CHIEF BUREAU 

OF NATURALIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND 

LABOR. 

Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I have been a little tardy in attend¬ 
ing to this request and in reporting on this bill. Of course, I desire 
to call }mur attention to the fact that I was acting in purely a min¬ 
isterial way and it is not the department’s bill. 

As I understood the request it was that I should prepare provisional 
legislation to cover certain points discussed here in the committee as 
to which the committee seemed to be agreed. I have done that, and 
in discussing the matter with the Assistant Secretary of the depart¬ 
ment he felt, in view of all the circumstances, particularly some public 
criticisms recently of administrative officers preparing legislation and 
urging it upon Congress, that I should bring to the attention of the 
committee that it was not something which the department urged 
or asked for, but something that was submitted at the request of the 
committee. 

It seems to me, gentlemen, the best plan I can adopt will be to 
read this bill slowly, and you can then stop me at any point. The 
bill is prepared in such a way that the proposed new legislation can 
readily be distinguished from the existing law, because the existing 
law, so far as embodied in the proposed act, is underscored. 

Mr. Bennet. Just a minute. I do not think there is any human 
possibility that we can consider and report that bill this morning, 
and I would like to make a suggestion, that the bill be printed for 
the use of the committee and that we have a meeting on Friday for 
naturalization purposes, and in that way we can give an hour and a 
half to Mr. Campbell. 

Mr. Elvins. Mr. Campbell is here now. 

Mr. Campbell. I do not think it will take more than fifteen or 
twenty minutes for me to explain this bill, because there is very 
little added. 

Mr. Kustermann. I think we better go ahead with Mr. Campbell 
now. 

Mr. Bennet. Then I withdraw the request. 


141 



142 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


Mr. Campbell. The first section is a reenactment of section 2166 
of the Revised Statutes, relating to those who have enlisted or may 
enlist in the armies of the United States: 

That any alien of the age of twenty-one years and upward who has enlisted, or 
may hereafter enlist, in the armies of the United States, either the regular or the vol¬ 
unteer forces, or in the United States Navy or Marine Corps, and has been, or may 
be hereafter, honorably discharged therefrom— 

That is a provision of the present law— 

may, at the expiration of one term of enlistment therein, if still a member of the 
service from which he obtained such honorable discharge, or if he has been a member 
of such service within six months prior to the date on which he may file his petition 
under the provisions of this act— 

That six months is in deference to what Mr. Sabath said, as you 
remember, Mr. Hayes. He maintained that they should probably 
have an indefinite length of time to be allowed to apply, under this 
provision that would exempt them from the general provisions of the 
law, and, I think, you suggested six months or some such term. At 
all events that is embodied here for your consideration— 

without any previous declaration of intention to become a citizen of the 
United States- 

The Chairman. Does that provide that a man must have served 
at least three years ? 

Mr. Campbell. You are thinking about the provision in regard to 
seamen. 

Mr. Hayes. We wanted to embody the same rule for all branches 
of the service, including the merchant marine. 

Mr. Campbell. You will see why I treat them separately as I go 
on. Of course, the committee can make such changes as they think 
desirable. 

E etition for naturalization in any court authorized to grant citizenship; and the 
onorable discharge certificate of such alien from the service of the United States, 
and the affidavits of two credible witnesses, citizens of the United States, identi¬ 
fying the applicant as the honorably discharged person named in the discharge cer¬ 
tificate presented, shall be deemed competent and sufficient proof of the residence 
and good moral character required by law, and either the original or a certified copy 
of such discharge shall be attached to and made a part of the petition, and he shall 
not be required to prove one year’s residence within the State in which he files his 
application to become a citizen, and the petition of any such alien shall be docketed, 
and final hearing had thereon by the court, immediately or at the convenience of 
the court. 

Mr. Elvins. Suppose there is a soldier who has served in the civil 
war, for example- 

Mr. Campbell. We have not yet reached that section. 

Mr. Elvins. He would not have to live a year within the State? 
Mr. Campbell. That question comes under another section. 
That is practically the construction the courts have already put on 
the law. This refers to men who are in the military service or who 
have left within six months. We will get to the other class later. 

Sec. 2. Every seaman, being a foreigner, of the age of twenty-one years and up¬ 
ward, who declares his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States in any 
court of competent jurisdiction, and shall have served three years subsequent to the 
date of such declaration on board of a merchant vessel of the United States, may, 
if still serving on any such vessel, petition for naturalization in any court authorized 
to grant citizenship; and the production of a certificate of such service and good 
conduct during that time from the master of the said vessel, together with the certifi¬ 
cate of his declaration to become a citizen of the United States, which shall be at- 




HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


143 


tached to and made a part of his petition, and the affidavits of two credible witnesses, 
citizens of the United States, identifying him as the person named in the certificate 
of service, and the declaration presented, shall be deemed competent and sufficient 
proof of the residence and good moral character required by law; and he shall not be 
required to prove one year’s residence within the State in which he files his applica¬ 
tion to become a citizen; and the petition of such seaman shall be docketed, and 
final hearing had thereon by the court immediately, or at the convenience of the 
court- 

Mr. Goldfogle. Please read that last sentence again? 

Mr. Campbell (reading): 

And the petition of such seaman shall be docketed, and final hearing had thereon 
by the court, immediately, or at the convenience of the court. 

Of course the only object of delay under the general law is to give 
the administrative officers a chance to investigate the moral character 
or the claims, in any respect, of a petitioner. Here, it is not needed. 

And every seaman, being a foreigner, shall, after his declaration of intention to 
become a citizen of the United States, and after he shall have served such three years, 
be deemed a citizen of the United States for the purpose of manning and serving on 
board any merchant vessel of the United States, anything to the contrary in any act 
of Congress notwithstanding, but such seaman shall, for all purposes of protection as 
an American citizen, be deemed such, after the filing of his declaration of intention 
to become such citizen. 

I want to say in reference to the last section that Mr. Chamberlain, 
the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, saw this bill while it was in the 
Secretary’s office and became rather exercised over the power given 
to a captain to furnish an honorable discharge or to furnish a certifi¬ 
cate of service and good behavior. I told him the reason for doing 
that was that the captain alone was cognizant of the facts. He said 
he wanted it extended to discharges or certificates issued by the ship¬ 
ping commissioners of the United States and by collectors of customs. 
I told him that I would report that to the committee. 

Mr. Hayes. Who was that ? 

Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chamberlain, the Chief of the Bureau of Navi¬ 
gation. I asked him to write me his views, so that there could be 
no mistake, and he modifies them in this letter which I have brought 
for the information of the committee. He still seems to think that it 
might be a good point, as the captains are sometimes reversed upon 
charges of misconduct by the shipping commissioners. Of course, I 
refer it to the committee to do whatever it chooses. 

Mr. Bennet. The captain is never reversed on a statement that a 
man has a good character ? 

Mr. Campbell. No; I think not. 

(The letter from Mr. E. T. Chamberlain, Chief Bureau of Naviga¬ 
tion, referred to by Mr. Campbell, follows:) 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Bureau of Navigation, 

Washington, February 28 , 1910 . 

Mr. Richard K. Campbell, 

Chief Division of Naturalization, 

Department of Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Campbell: Referring to section 3 of the draft of the bill prepared by 
you relating to naturalization, I beg to call your attention to the provision which 
requires that the certificate of service and good conduct issued by the master shall 
be necessary to enable a seaman to avail himself of the provisions of section 2174 
of the Revised Statutes in applying for naturalization. Objection may be raised 
to this on the ground that it gives the master an exceptional power over the seaman. 

When I telephoned you this morning I thought the situation might be met by pro- 


144 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


viding as an alternative that the shipping commissioner also before whom the seaman 
is discharged may be empowered to issue a certificate of service and good conduct. 
Shipping commissioners have the power under Revised Statutes 4554, 4555 to arbitrate 
disputes between masters and seamen which sometimes involves fines for alleged mis¬ 
conduct, and sometimes, of course, the commissioner decides in favor of the seaman 
and against the master. In such a case the shipping commissioner’s ruling in favor 
of the seaman ought to count for more than the master’s allegation of misconduct. 

Sections 4549 and 4551 of the Revised Statutes govern discharges and I inclose a 
copy of the form. Your'section 3 states the present law, but it is a question whether 
under the new and more rigid naturalization law the alternative I suggest should not 
be provided. 

Respectfully, E. T. Chamberlain, 

Commissioner. 

Mr. Campbell. That covers those two sections. Now, here is a 
section that I referred to generally when I was here, and it also covers 
certain branches of the military service, the auxiliary naval service, 
the Revenue-Cutter Service, and a number of others whose employees 
are necessarily in the line of their duty prevented from complying 
with the general provisions of the law. I think it was my suggestion 
that they be embodied in specific legislation to show just what they 
should do. I submit this for your consideration. 

Sec. 3. That any alien of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who declares 
his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States in any court of competent 
jurisdiction, and shall have served five years subsequent to the date of such declara¬ 
tion on board of any vessel employed in the service of the United States, either civil, 
military, or naval, may, if still engaged in such service, petition for naturalization 
in any court authorized to grant citizenship; and the production of a certificate of 
such service, and of good conduct during that time, from the head of the department 
under which said alien is serving, together with the certificate of his declaration to 
become a citizen of the United States, which shall be attached to and made a part of 
his petition, and the affidavits of two credible witnesses, citizens of the United States, 
identifying him as the person named in the certificate of service, and the declaration 
presented, shall be deemed competent and sufficient proof of the residence and good 
moral character required by law; and he shall not be required to prove one year’s 
residence within the State in which he files his application to become a citizen; and 
the petition of such alien shall be docketed and final hearing had thereon by the 
court, immediately, or at the convenience of the court. 

Now, the general language of those three sections as to what is 
required might fortify the suggestion of Judge Hayes that one section 
be used, but I have treated them separately, because I reembodied 
in the act the provisions with regard to seamen contained in section 
2174 of the Revised Statutes and of section 2166 of the Revised 
Statutes. 

The next section is one that was intended to cover all classes 
referred to in the bills H. R. 14574 and 14575. 

Mr. Elvins. The Howland bills ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; that is the one to which you referred 
a few moments ago. It provides as follows: 

Sec. 4. Any alien who has performed service in the army or navy of the United 
States prior to the year eighteen hundred and seventy, or a" child of any such alien, 
after reaching the age of twenty-one years, may, upon satisfactory proof to the court 
in which he shall apply therefor of the performance of the service claimed, and of 
honorable discharge therefrom, be entitled, upon compliance with the other provisions 
of the act of June twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and six, chapter thirty-five hun¬ 
dred and ninety-two, Statutes at Large of the United States, nineteen hundred and 
five to nineteen hundred and seven, to be naturalized without making any declara¬ 
tion of intention. 

The Chairman. Please read that again. 

Mr. Campbell. Certainly. 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


145 


Any alien who has performed service in the army or navy of the United States prior 
to the year eighteen hundred and seventy, or a child of any such alien, after reaching 
the age of twenty-one years, may, upon satisfactory proof to the court in which he shall 
apply therefor of the performance of the service claimed, and of honorable discharge 
therefrom, be entitled, upon compliance with the other provisions of the act of June 
twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and six, chapter thirty-five hundred and ninety-two, 
Statutes at Large of the United States, nineteen hundred and five to nineteen hundred 
and seven, to be naturalized without making any declaration of intention. 

There is no exemption there from the one year’s jurisdictional 
requirement. There is no provision there that lie shall be heard in 
less than ninety days after the filing of his petition. I did not know 
whether it was the pleasure of the committee to assume good moral 
conduct or good character on the part of those people or whether 
they preferred that the Government should make a similar investi¬ 
gation for the purpose of establishing that fact. 

Mr. Bennet. I think that is all right. 

Mr. Kustermann. You do not refer to the child again. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; that is true. I noticed that this morning 
in going over it again, but I think almost any court would construe 
it so as to cover that point. 

Mr. Kustermann. Well, it ought to be put in there. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes; I think it should, and upon proof of relation¬ 
ship, if it be a child of some person who has performed that service. 

I have a section here, section 5, which repeals sections 2166 and 
2174, and the provision of the act of July 26, 1894, in regard to sea¬ 
men, because what is vital in those provisions is embodied in this act. 

Sec. 6. That all provisions of the act of June twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and 
six, chapter thirty-five hundred and ninety-two, Statutes at Large of the United 
States, nineteen hundred and five to nineteen hundred and seven— 

This is rather precautionary. 

shall apply to petitions for naturalization filed under this act, in so far as exception 
has not been specifically made herein to such provisions. 

That, perhaps, is somewhat unnecessary, but it is very satisfying 
to some of the courts. It removes any doubt. 

Mr. Hayes. They do not have to consider any inferences ? 

Mr. Campbell. Not any inferences at all; there is the plain pro¬ 
vision of the law. 

Section 7 is one that I have some doubt about and I apologize for 
embodying it, as you gentlemen did not ask me to put it in, but I 
have put it in and the committee can do what it pleases. 

Sec. 7. That nothing in this, or any other act, shall be construed as repealing or 
in any way limiting section twenty-one hundred and sixty-nine of the Revised Stat¬ 
utes of the United States. 

That is the provision, Mr. Hayes, to which you referred. 

I would like to explain my insertion of a limitation in one portion 
of the bill. You recollect when I was last before the committee we 
were discussing this question of exempting people who served in the 
army, either the regular or volunteer forces, and there was some 
difference of opinion as to whether the exemptions should be confined 
to persons who at the time of filing a petition were still members of 
the service. I thought not. I think there was some discussion back 
and forth and finally somebody, I think it was Mr. Hayes, but I will 
not be positive, said something about confining it to those who had 
only been out a moderate time, six months or something like that, 

49090—10-10 


146 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


and so I have limited the provision here to any person who has been 
a member within six months prior to the date on which he shall file 
his petition and to those who are actually in the service. 

Mr. Goldfogle. With respect to those, what provision have you 
made as to proof of good moral character ? 

Mr. Campbell. A certificate of discharge. Here is the provision 
in regard to that: 

And the honorable discharge certificate of such alien from the service of the United 
States, and the affidavits of two credible witnesses, citizens of the United. States, 
identifying the applicant as the honorably discharged person named in the discharge 
certificate presented, shall be deemed competent and sufficient proof of the residence 
and good moral character required by law. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Do you mean without regard to the time of the 
discharge ? 

Mr. Campbell. Within six months. He must either still be in 
the service- 

Mr. Goldfogle. Or make his application within six months ? 

Mr. Campbell. Or make his application within six months after 
severing his connection with the service. 

Mr. Hayes. It seems to me that is a little long. 

Mr. Campbell. Maybe it is. I put it in because I thought you or 
Mr. Sabath or somebody suggested six months. 

Mr. Sabath. I thought it should be a year, because frequently men 
are discharged from the army, and the aim is to reach their homes, 
and sometimes things transpire which will make it absolutely impossi¬ 
ble for them to devote two or three days to secure citizenship. They 
are obliged to look for employment, or there are other reasons, and 
they are unable to mdke the application within due time. The mere 
fact that they have served for -three years and have been honorably 
discharged, I think, should entitle them to their naturalization papers. 

Mr. Elvins. Not if they put it off too long. 

Mr. Sabath. I think it should be a year. I will tell you that a man 
frequently goes home, and before he reaches his destination it takes 
perhaps three or four weeks; we do not know. Sometimes, if he is 
discharged in the islands, it will take him six weeks, will it not ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sabath. It may take him two months before he reaches his 
destination. 

Mr. Hayes. Not six weeks, if he comes straight home. 

Mr. Sabath. You know. 

Mr. Campbell. An accident at sea might delay his return. 

Mr. Hayes. As a matter of fact, they are never discharged in the 
islands. 

Mr. Sabath. They are not ? 

Mr. Hayes. They are always brought here and discharged, unless 
for disability. They might be discharged for disability in the 
islands. 

Mr. Sabath. I admit that I am not very well informed as to the 
military laws. 

Mr. Kustermann. I think six months is all right. 

Mr. Campbell. There is one other matter which I would like to 
bring to your attention. Among the bills sent to me was one not 
mentioned when I was here, and I paid no attention to it when drafting 
that measure. It is an amendment of section 2172 of the Revised 



HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


147 


Statutes, which provides, if you recollect, that the minor children 
of a naturalized alien, if resident in the United States, shall become 
citizens of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of the 
parent. There is this provision added: 

Any infant- 

Mr. Goldfogle. What are you reading from ? 

Mr. Campbell. The bill H. R. 14576, introduced by Mr. Howland 

Any infant coming to the United States under fifteen years of age and who has 
thereafter resided in the United States for a period of twenty-one years shall be 
admitted to become a citizen of the United States upon his petition and in accordance 
with the procedure in such cases made and provided, without any previous declara¬ 
tion of his intention, upon proof of such residence, good moral character, and upon 
further showing that he does not belong to any nationality or race not entitled to 
become citizens of the United States; but no person heretofore proscribed by any 
State shall be admitted to become a citizen without the consent of the legislature of 
the State in which such person was proscribed. 

I did not embody that in the proposed bill because it was not men¬ 
tioned here. I just left it as I found it. 

Mr. Elvins. The idea was to embody all the suggestions. 

Mr. Hayes. No; to embody only the necessary provisions to cor¬ 
rect anything in the past, but not to project anything in the future. 

Mr. Campbell. That is the way I understood it. With regard to 
this class who served on vessels of the United States, I think that was 
the only other case. 

Mr. Hayes. As far as the Howland bill was concerned, I think it 
was unanimously understood that we would not project any of those 
things into the future. 

Mr. Campbell. There are here the two bills suggested, I think, by 
Colonel Lauchheimer. I think they" are provided for in that general 
section No. 3, which makes provision for persons serving on a vessel 
of the United States, either civil, military, or naval. You will recol¬ 
lect the section that I read a while ago. I think that covers both of 
those bills. If you have not copies, I will leave these with you so that 
you can compare them and see if it does not accomplish that purpose. 

(The copies referred to are as follows:) 

A BILL To provide for the naturalization of aliens who have served or shall hereafter serve for one enlist¬ 
ment of four years in the United States Navy or Marine Corps, or for four years in the naval auxiliary. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled , That any alien of the age of twenty-one years and upward who 
has served or may hereafter serve for one enlistment of four years in the United States 
Navy or Marine Corps, and received an honorable discharge, or an ordinary discharge 
with recommendation for reenlistment, or who has completed four years of honorable 
service in the naval auxiliary service, shall be admitted to become a citizen of the 
United States upon his petition without any previous declaration of his intention to 
become such, and without proof of residence on shore, and the court admitting such 
alien shall, in addition to proof of good moral character, be satisfied by competent 
proof from naval sources of such service: Provided , That an honorable discharge from 
the Navy, Marine Corps, or the naval auxiliary service, or an ordinary discharge with 
recommendation for reenlistment shall be accepted as proof of good moral character: 
Provided further, That any court which now has or may hereafter be given jurisdiction 
to naturalize aliens as citizens of the United States may immediately naturalize any 
alien applying under and furnishing the proof prescribed by the foregoing provision. 


Section 2166. Any alien of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who has 
enlisted or may hereafter enlist in the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps, or in the volun¬ 
teer forces, and has been or may hereafter be honorably discharged, shall be admitted 



148 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


to become a citizen of the United States upon his petition, and shall not be required 
to prove residence within the United States previous to his application to become 
such citizen, and the court admitting such alien shall be satisfied in respect to the 
moral character of the applicant by competent proof of such person having heen 
honorably discharged from the military or naval service of the United States at the 
expiration of a legal term of enlistment. 

Mr. Elyins. An old soldier, for example, under the provisions of 
your bill would have to make a declaration of intention to become a 
citizen. Why do you think it necessary that he should have one year’s 
residence in some State ? 

Mr. Campbell. That is a matter provided for by law now, and I 
did not attempt to pass any opinion on it. What do you mean, why 
do I think he should not reside there? 

Mr. Elvins. You have provided that he should? 

Mr. Campbell. In the bill he is exempted from that provision. 

Mr. Elvins. No; I am talking about one who served prior to 1870 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I heard no suggestion made in regard to that. 

Mr. Elvins. You exempt those now in the military or naval serv 
ice, or who have been within six months, but . you put it upon one 
who served prior to 1870 ? 

Mr. Campbell. I left that matter just as it stood. I was advised 
to make only certain exceptions in their behalf. 

Mr. Elvins. To put the question another way, What objection 
would there be to giving to the old soldier the same exemption from 
the one year’s residence in a State that is given to a man now in the 
service ? 

Mr. Campbell. I have no objection whatever. 

Mr. Elvins. Would there be any valid objection? 

Mr. Campbell. No; I do not know that there would be. I have 
never given that subject any particular consideration. The reason, 
of course, does not apply in that case. In the other instances, while 
the courts are given jurisdiction irrespective of the fact that the 
petitioner has not resided in their jurisdiction for the statutory period 
of twelve months, because they can not in view of the duties they 
perform comply with the provision. That is the only reason they are 
exempted. The real exemption is from the declaration, and that 
refers both to those serving prior to 1870 and since. 

Mr. Elvins. Here is my point. The bill makes provision for the 
naturalization of soldiers and sailors who are now in the service, and 
the provision to which I refer is that they do not have to live within 
the State for a year before they become citizens. That is also true 
of one who is honorably discharged from the service if he makes 
application within six months, but as to the old soldiers who served 
prior to 1870, they must live within the State one year and also file 
their petition, and I asked Mr. Campbell if there was any good 
reason why they should not be given the exemption. 

Mr. Hayes. What is the objection to that? 

Mr. Elvins. The objection is that I have some men in my country 
to which this provision would apply who have not been residents of 
the State a year. They are just as much entitled to become citizens 
as anybody else. 

Mr. Edwards. There is not any reason why it should apply to 
that class. 

Mr. Hayes. The same reason does not exist. The reason for 
doing away with that requirement in the case of the soldier or sailor, 


HEARING ON NATURALIZATION BILLS. 


149 


as Mr. Campbell has already explained, is because the very nature 
of their duties makes it impossible for them to do it. 

Mr. Elvins. But after he is out of the service entirely he can do 
so at any time within six months. 

Mr. Hayes. I think that is a little long. 

Mr. Bennet. I move that the bill which has been presented by 
Mr. Campbell be printed for the use of the committee and that we 
hold a meeting on Friday to consider naturalization matters and re¬ 
quest Mr. Campbell, if he can do so, to be with us. 

Mr. Campbell. I will be present, with pleasure. 

Mr. Elvins. And that the new legislation proposed by the bill be 
distinguished some way in the print, either by underscoring or 
otherwise. 

Mr. Bennet. I accept the suggestion of Mr. Elvins. 

Mr. Campbell. That is done in the typewritten copy which I have 
here. 

(The motion was agreed to.) 

(Thereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of execu¬ 
tive business, after which it adjourned.) 


HEARINGS ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

March If., 1910. 

Representative Howell, chairman of the committee, received, 
through Air. John J. D. Trenor, of New York City, former chairman 
of the committee on immigration of the National Board of Trade, a 
symposium on the general subject of immigration. It consisted of 
three queries, as follows: 

1. Has immigration in the past proved beneficial or otherwise? 

2. Has it now reached a point where it would constitute a menace to American 
labor? If so, what remedy would you suggest? 

3. In your opinion, would an intelligent distribution of immigration under the 
direction of the federal authorities, in conjunction with those of the various States, 
tend to offset the evils of alleged excessive immigration? 

To these three queries 93 replies were received by Air. Trenor, joint 
author of The Italian in America. The letter transmitting the 
copies of the replies, together with the copies of the letters, with an 
index preceding them, follow: 

No. A.] 

National Board of Trade, 
Commissioner’s Office, 1140 Fifteenth St. NW., 

Washington, D. C., February 18, 1910. 

Hon. Benjamin Howell, 

Chairman Committee on Immigration, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: At the request of Air. Frank D. La Lanne, president of 
the National Board of Trade, I have the honor to transmit herewith 
93 copies of correspondence on the subject of immigration, together 
with a letter addressed to Air. La Lanne by Air. John J. D. Trenor, 
who as chairman of the committee on immigration of the National 
Board of Trade voluntarily undertook the investigation, which cov¬ 
ered a broad ground. 

The results of his work as embodied in the replies referred to are 
sent to your honorable committee in the hope and belief that they 
may, in a measure at least, tend to assist it in arriving at a conservative 
conclusion on a subject of such moment. 

It seems almost needless to add that the National Board of Trade 
has always manifested a keen interest in the subject of immigration, 
which has formed the basis of various resolutions passed at its annual 
sessions. 

To illustrate this I beg to append a copy of the resolutions passed 
at its last annual sessions in this city, held on January 25, 26, and 27, 
1910. 


150 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


151 


XXV. IMMIGRATION. 

Whereas the United States Government from its inception has extended a wel¬ 
come to worthy immigrants from almost every country; and 
Whereas immigration from foreign countries has furnished much of the necessary 
labor and largely contributed to the development of the United States; and 

Whereas immigration has been a great factor in populating this great country, 
developing its resources, and building up its manufacturing interests; and 
Whereas immigrant labor is still greatly needed in the development of the South 
and West and in furnishing labor to the manufacturing plants of the East: Therefore 
Resolved , That the National Board of Trade is in favor of continuing immigration 
of those in good health, of good moral character and intelligence, and who are not 
dependents, and it is opposed to the so-called educational tests. 

I am further requested by Mr. La Lanne to state that should your 
honorable committee desire his presence to speak in connection with 
this subject, he will be happy to come on at any time, previous notice 
being sent him at 214 Chestnut street, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Should the honorable committee deem it necessary to inspect the 
original letters, Mr. Trenor, whose address is “The Whitehall Build¬ 
ing, New York City,” will gladly comply in person with the com¬ 
mittee's request. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours, 

(Signed) Albert M. Read, 

Commissioner. 


No. B.] J. J. I). Trenor, The Whitehall Building, 

New York, January 12, 1910. 

Prank D. La Lanne, Esq.. 

President National Board of Trade, Philadelphia, Pa. 

My Dear Mr. La Lanne : In view of the interest which the 
National Board of Trade has always taken in the subject of immigra¬ 
tion, and fulfilling the promise made while I was chairman of its com¬ 
mittee on immigration to canvass the matter with various interests 
in the country, I have the honor to send you herewith a copy of the 
circular letter issued by me, together with copies of the replies received 
thereto, 94 in all. 

These answers come from governors of various States, boards of 
trade, railroad presidents, Cardinal Gibbons, and many other persons 
of standing in the community. 

In summarizing the replies, it may be stated, as a general proposi¬ 
tion, that the following premises have been established: 

1. That the general effect of immigration to this country has been 
beneficial. 

2. That immigration so far has not constituted a menace to 
American labor. 

3. That it is still needed for our industrial and commercial develop¬ 
ment. 

L That a comprehensive plan of distribution, under the direction 
of the federal authorities, in cooperation with those of the various 
States, is most desirable, and would tend to obviate the evils of 
congestion in our larger cities. 

In view of the fact that the Joint Congressional Commission on 
immigration was engaged in its investigations, I deemed it inexpe¬ 
dient to transmit this correspondence to you until the present time, 
when the issue is a live one. 



152 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


I trust it may prove of interest to the National Board of Trade and 
aid it somewhat in its deliberations on the immigration problem. 

The joint congressional commission will be furnished with copies 
of the letters referred to. 

It is my purpose to be in Washington unofficially on the 24th, 25th, 
26th, and 27th instants, when I shall be glad to cooperate in any way 
that may prove of service to the National Board of Trade. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) Jno. J. D. Trenor. 


[Copy.] 

No. C.] John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, 

New York , May —, 1907. 

Dear Sir: As a member of the National Board of Trade and its 
committee on immigration, I have been asked by the president of 
that body to aid in such work as might prove of service to the board 
in its deliberations in connection with the question of immigration, 
so that the recommendations made by it to Congress may receive 
that attention to which timely and well-considered propositions are 
entitled. 

I may be permitted to remark that I have devoted much time and 
thought to the subject named and the problems growing out of it 
and was the joint author of the work entitled “The Italian in Amer¬ 
ica/ ’ which received much consideration from many members of 
both branches of Congress and the press generally, some two years 
ago. 

Being desirous of adding to my possibly limited information upon 
the matter, I have taken the liberty of intruding on your valuable 
time in the hope that you will kindly favor me with replies to the 
following queries: 

1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in recent 
years been beneficial or otherwise ? 

2. In your opinion has the tide of immigration reached a point 
where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer ? 
If so, what method of restriction would you suggest ? 

3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an intelligent 
plan of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with 
those of the various States would, by relieving the congestion in our 
larger cities, tend to solve the problem of alleged excessive immi¬ 
gration ? 

If in your opinion immigration is needed in your State, is it required 
for the development of your agricultural as well as your industrial 
resources ? 

The assurance that your reply would be of value in assisting us to 
a comprehensive view of the situation in all its bearings must serve 
as my apology for this intrusion. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

(Signed) Jno. J. D. Trenor. 



No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


153 


J. D. Trenor, in answer to queries propounded by him. 


[Arranged in order of States and cities.] 


City. 


Montgomery.. 

Mobile. 

_do. 

Montgomery.. 

.do. 

Little Rock.. 

.do. 

Sacramento.. 
San Francisco 

Denver. 

.do. 

Hartford. 

.do. 

Dover. 

Wilmington.. 

Atlanta. 

Augusta. 

Macon. 

_do.. 

Savannah_ 

Boise. 

Chicago.. 

_do. 

.do.. 

_do.. 

_do. 

Springfield.... 

Des Moines... 

Topeka.. 

_do. 

Maysville. 

New Orleans.. 
Augusta. 

Baltimore. 

Boston. 

_do. 

Holyoke. 

Detroit. 

Grand Rapids. 
Marquette 

St. Paul. 

Minneapolis... 

_do. 

St. Paul. 

_do. 

_do. 

Minneapolis.. 

Jefferson City. 


Kansas City. 

Lincoln. 

Trenton.... 

Newark. 

_do. 

Trenton.... 

Albany. 

Binghamton 

Elmira. 

New York.. 


From whom received. 


Hon. B. B. Comer, governor. 

Hon. Pat. J. Lyons, mayor. 

Chamber of commerce. 

J. S. Pinchard, esq., chairman committee on immigration, 
Commercial Club. 

O. O. Nelson, esq., of Holt, Nelson & Holt. 

Little Rock Board of Trade. 

W. M. Kavanaugh, esq., of the Southern Trust Co. 

Hon. M. R. Beard, mayor. 

C. 11. Bentley, esq., president the Chamber of Commerce of 
San Francisco. 

Hon. Henry A. Buchtel, governor of the State of Colorado. 
The Denver Chamber of Commerce and Board of Trade. 
His excellency, Governor Woodruff, by Chas. E. Julin, 
executive secretary. 

. Hartford Chamber of Commerce. 

His Excellency Governor Lea, by Wesley Webb, corre¬ 
sponding secretary of the state board of agriculture. 

Hon. Horace Wilson, mayor. 

Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. 

Thos. K. Scott, esq., general manager Georgia Railroad. 

S. F. Parrott, esq., vice-president Georgia Southern and 
Florida Ry. Company. 

J. F. Hanson, esq., president Central of Georgia Railway 
Company. 

W. W. Williamson, esq., president the Savannah Chamber 
of Commerce. 

Hon. F. R. Gooding, governor of the State of Idaho. 

Geo. B. Harris, esq., president Chicago, Burlington and 
j Quincy Railway Company. 

S. M. Felton, esq., president the Chicago and Alton R. R. 
Company. 

E. P. Ripley, esq., president the Atchison, Topeka and 
Santa Fe Rv. system. 

Rock Island lines, bureau of immigration. 

J. T. Harahan, esq., president Illinois Central R. R. Com¬ 
pany. 

David Ross, esq., secretary bureau of labor statistics, by di¬ 
rection of Governor Deneen. 

Hon. Albert B. Cummins, governor of the State of Iowa. 
Hon. E. W. Hoeh, governor of the State of Kansas. 

The Commercial Club of Topeka. 

Hon. William II. Cox, state senator. 

Louisiana state board of agriculture and immigration. 
Bureau of industrial and labor statistics, State of Maine, by 
direction of Governor Cobb. 

' His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons, by W. T. Russel, secretary. 

Lucius Tuttle, esq., president Maine Central R. R. Co. 
i The Boston Chamber of Commerce. 

Hon. Nathan P. Avery, mayor. 

Detroit Board of Commerce. 

Grand Rapids Board of Trade. 

Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic Ry. Co.. Mineral Range 
R. R. Co. 

Hon. John F. Johnson, governor of the State of Minnesota. 
Hon. J. C. Haynes, mayor. 

The public affairs committee of the Commercial Club. 
Bureau of labor of the State of Minnesota. 

James J. Hill, esq., president Great Northern Ry. Co. 

A. B. Stickney, esq., president Chicago Great Western Ry. 

! | Co. 

,j E. Pennington, esq., vice-president and general manager 
Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co. 
j Bureau of labor statistics of the State of Missouri, by direc¬ 
tion of Hon. Joseph W. Folk, governor of the State of 
Missouri. 

Hon. H. M. Beardsley, mayor. 

Hon. George L. Sheldon, governor of the State of Nebraska. 
Hon. E. C. Stokes, governor of the State of New Jersey. 
Hon. Jacob Haussling, mayor. 

1 The board of trade of the city of Newark, N. J. 

Hon. F. W. Gnichtel, mayor. 

Albany Chamber of Commerce. 

Hon. H. H. Woodbury, mayor. 

Hon. Z. R. Brockway, mayor. 

W. H. Truesdale, esq., president Delaware, Lackaw r annaand 
1 Western R. R. Co. 
































































































































































154 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Index of replies received by Mr. John J. D. Trenor, in answer to queries propounded by him . 


No. 


59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

•79 

80 


81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 


[Arranged in order of States and cities.] 


State. 

City. 

New York. 

New York. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

Rome. 

.do. 

Schenectady. 

.do. 

.do._... 

.do. 

Syracuse.. 

.do. 

Troy. 

North Dakota. 

Bismarck_ 

Ohio. 

Columbus.... 

.do. 

Cleveland.... 

.do. 

Columbus_ 

.do. 

Dayton. 

.do. 

Toledo. 

Oregon. 

Salem. 

Pennsylvania. 

Harrisburg. 

.do. 

Philadelphia.. 

;.do. 

Pittsburg. 

| Rhode Island. 

Providence. 

South Carolina.... 

Charleston. 

.do. 

Columbia. 

South Dakota. 

Pierre. 

Tennessee. 

Nashville. 

1 Texas. 

Austin. 

.do. 

Houston. 

.do. 

San Antonio. 

Utah. 

Salt Lake City_ 

Vireinia. 

Norfolk. 

_.do. 

Richmond.. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

Roanoke. 

Wisconsin. 

Madison. 

.do. 

Milwaukee.. 

Wyoming. 

Cheyenne. 




From whom received. 


James Quinlan, esq., president Greenwich Savings Bank. 
The Rt. Rev. Henry C. Potter, bishop Protestant Episco¬ 
pal Diocese of New York. 

Frederick D. Underwood, esq., president Erie Railroad. 

T. P. Fowler, esq., of the New York, Ontario and Western 

R. R. Co. 

Rome Board of Trade. 

Hon. Jacob W. Clute, mayor. 

Andrew V. Raymond, esq., president Union College. 
Syracuse Chamber of Commerce. 

Hon. Elias P. Mann, mayor. 

Hon. John Burke, governor of the State of North Dakota. 
Hon. Andrew L. Harris, governor of the State of Ohio, by 

S. J. Flickinger, secretary. 

Hon. Tom L. Johnson. 

F. B. Sheldon, esq., assistant to president the Hocking 
Valley Rwy. Co. 

The Dayton Chamber of Commerce. 

Hon. Brand Whitlock, mayor. 

Hon. Geo. E. Chamberlain^ governor of the State of Oregon. 
The Harrisburg Board of Trade. 

Sam’l Rea, esq., third vice-president the Pennsylvania 
Railroad Company. 

Albert M. Hauauer, esq., of the P. H. Hamberger Co. 

Hon. James H. Higgins, governor of the State of Rhode 
Island. 

Hon. R. G. Rhett, mayor. 

Department of agriculture, commerce, and immigration of 
the State of South Carolina, by direction of the governor 
of the State of South Carolina. ^ 

Hon. Coe I. Crawford, governor of the State of South 
Dakota. 

Hon. T. O. Morris, mayor. 

Department of agriculture, insurance, statistics, and history 
of the State of Texas. 

The Houston and Texas Central R. R. Co. 

San Antonio and Aransas Pass Ry. Co. 

Hon. John C. Cutler, governor of the State of Utah. 

L. Sevier, esq., vice-president, Seaboard Air Line Ry. 

Hon. Carlton McCarthy, mayor. 

George W. Stevens, esq., president Chesapeake and Ohio 
Ry. Co. 

LHS. Johnson, esq., president, Norfolk and Western Ry. 

Bureau of labor and industrial statistics of the State of 
Wisconsin by direction of Governor James O. Davidson. 
Wisconsin Central R. R., by William II. Killen, land and 
industrial commissioner. 

Hon. B. B. Brooks, governor of the State of Wyoming. 


[Copy.] 

No. 1.] Chief Executive Department, Alabama, 

Montgomery , May 22, 1907. 

Hon. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New Yorlc City. 

Dear Sir: Yours of the 13th received and carefully noted. 
Answering your questions seriatim, will say that in my opinion 
the influence of immigration to our State in recent years has been 
beneficial. Second. The tide of immigration has not reached a 
point where it is a menace, and think it would be to our interest 
to increase the number. Third. I think that an intelligent distri¬ 
bution by the federal authorities in conjunction with those of the 
State would be beneficial. We have never had an excess of immi¬ 
grants, and they are needed both in development of agricultural 
and industrial resources. 

With regards, I am, yours, very truly, 

(Signed) 


B. B. Comer. 































































































HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


155 


[Copy.] 

No. 2.] Executive Department, 

City of Mobile, Ala., May SO, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Tour letter of the 23d. I have gone over the work, 
entitled ‘The Italian in Americaand was glad to note that this 
much-villified race met with some measure of vindication therein. 
Our Italian immigrants are peaceful, law abiding, industrious people, 
who have done no little toward the building up of this section. 
Answering your questions as they are set out, I beg to say: 

1. I wish to say emphatically that the immigration to our State, 
and especially the counties in this locality, has been very beneficial. 

2. The immigrants we have received have in no way interfered 
with any material interest; in fact, we need many more than have 
come here. 

3. I think it would be well for the federal authorities to take in 
hand the distribution of immigrants, thus relieving congestion in 
the large cities and aiding the progress of those sections needing 
immigration for their development. More immigration is certainly 
needed in this State to develop our agricultural and industrial 
resources, especially the former. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) Pat. J. Lyons, Mayor. 


No. 3.] CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MOBILE, ALA. 

In answer to my letter of May 15,1907, the president of the Chamber 
of Commerce, Mobile, Ala., replied as follows: 

Question 1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in recent years 
been beneficial or otherwise? 

Answer. Good. 

Question 2. In your opinion, has the tide of immigration reached a point where it 
constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer? 

Answer. Not in this State. 

Question 3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an intelligent plan 
of distribution by the Federal authorities, in conjunction with those of the various 
States, would, by relieving the congestion in our larger cities, tend to solve the problem 
of alleged excessive immigration? 

Answer. I do. 

Question 4. If in your opinion immigration is needed in your State, is it required 
for the development of your agricultural as well as your industrial resources? 

Answer. Yes; very largely. 


[Copy.] 

No. 4.] The State Abstract Company, 

Montgomery, Ala., May 25, 1907 . 

Jno. J. D. Trenor, Esq., 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Yours of the 15th addressed to the president chamber 
of commerce, Montgomery, Ala., was referred by the secretary of our 
Commercial Club to me for answer. I have been chairman of the com¬ 
mittee on immigration of the Commercial Club for a couple of years 




156 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


and in this capacity have endeavored as best I could to consider the 
problem of immigration into Alabama in all its bearings. 

Our committee is hopelessly divided as to just what should be the 
policy of the State on this question. Some of us think that the 
influx of foreigners into the United States should be limited. All 
of us think that some kind of physical, property, and educational 
test should be applied as a requisite for admission. The committee 
seems to be in favor of restricting the importation of foreign citizens 
to the northern countries of Europe, or, to speak more accurately, 
to excluding the undesirable element from southern Italy and one 
or two other undesirable sections. 

Answering your questions seriatim, I would say, speaking for my¬ 
self and for the committee of the Commercial Club, as nearly as I 
can approximately: 

First. The general influence of immigration into Alabama in recent 
years has been beneficial. 

Second. The tide of immigration into this State has not reached 
a point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the Alabama 
laborer and should not be restricted for this reason. 

Third. In our opinion, the fostering of an intelligent plan of dis¬ 
tribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with the various 
States, in order that immigrants might be distributed to different 
sections and sent to districts in which they could obtain congenial 
employment, would tend to solve the problem of excessive immigra¬ 
tion to the congestive districts and would be of great and lasting 
advantage to this section of the United States. 

Fourth. Immigration is needed to this State for the development 
of all kinds of industries. We have a great deal of undeveloped 
agricultural land and a climate and soil highly adapted to agricul¬ 
tural pursuits. The mining, manufacturing, and industrial sections of 
the State need desirable immigrants and could use a large number of 
them, but in our judgment the agricultural districts of Alabama 
afford an equal if not a greater inducement to the home seekers of 
other sections. 

As chairman of the committee on immigration, I would be de¬ 
lighted to furnish you any data at hand concerning the resources of 
Alabama and the inducements that are offered to desirable immi¬ 
grants to locate here. 

Very respectfully, 

(Signed) J. S. Pinchard, 

Chairman Committee on Immigration , 

Commercial Club , Montgomery , Ala. 


[Copy.] 

No. 5.] HcIlt, Nelson & Holt, 

Montgomery , Ala., April 18, 1907. 

Mr. Jno. J. D. Trenor, 

New York. 

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your esteemed favor under date 
April 13, and I consider the committee fortunate to number among its 
members one who understands and appreciates the situation so 
thoroughly. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


157 


It is unquestionably a fact that the industries of our cities of the 
South are continually drawing upon our farms for labor which is not 
being replaced, and the only solution of the problem for this section of 
the country seems to be immigration. It certainly is not true that 
immigration has become a menace to the southern laborer as I see it. 
Roughly speaking, I believe we could give employment to twice the 
number of laborers we now have. 

Unfortunately for us comparatively few in this section seem to be 
alive to the situation, and most of them are in ignorance of the 
amendments recently passed. 

If you are at any time in this part of the country, I believe it would 
be beneficial to our cause for you to address our people. I have only 
recently received a letter from our president, notifying me of my 
appointment as a member of this committee. I have formulated no 
plans, and would appreciate any suggestions from you. 

Thanking you for your kind letter, I beg to remain, 

Very truly, yours, 


(Signed) O. O. Nelson. 


[Copy.] 

No. 6.] Board of Trade, 

Little Rock, May 21, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

New York City, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Your favor of May 15, on the subject of immigration is 
having our attention, and we want to thank you in advance for your 
kindness and thoughtfulness in directing your attention to us. We 
have recently received letters of similar purport from the National 
Business League of Chicago and Mr. Sebastian, passenger traffic man¬ 
ager of the Rock Island Railway, also of Chicago. 

I will undertake to answer your interesting interrogations in the 
same order in which you presented them: 

1. The general influence of immigrants to this State in recent years 
has been decidedly beneficial. 

2. In my opinion the tide of immigration has by no means reached 
the point where it constitutes a menace to the interest of the Ameri¬ 
can laborer. The farmer, the sawmill, and the mine owners are 
crying out for labor. We need them in all parts of the State for the 
development of our natural resources, on our farms and in our 
factories. 

3. I think that there should be joint action on the part of the 
Federal Government and that of various States by means of which 
immigrants could be sent where their services are needed, where they 
would do well, would acquire homes and become true American 
citizens. 

Immigration is largely needed in our State for the development 
of our agriculture, and you should remember in this State that it is 
only in the cotton belt where the negro labor exceeds numerically 
the white labor. 



158 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


German Catholic immigrants and Italians do well in Arkansas. 
In a few years they own their places and make splendid citizens. I 
can give you a list of their colonies at any time you may desire the 
information. 

Yours, truly, 

(Signed) Geo. R. Brown, 

Secretary. 


[Copy.] 

No. 7.] Southern Trust Company, 

Little Rock, Ark., May 28, 1907. 

Mr. Jno. J. D. Trenor, 

New York. 

Dear Sir: I am informed by Mr. George R. Brown, secretary of the 
Little Rock Board of Trade, that you desire some information as to 
the demand for labor in this State. In regard to this matter I desire 
to say that this class of labor was very unsatisfactory, and, if possible, 
we are going to get other laborers to take their places. 

Our climate is mild. It does not get too warm in the summer, and 
our winters are not very severe. In my opinion, the laborers are 
better protected than in any other section of the country. Under 
our laws the public schools are maintained so that the children of the 
poor people have the same advantages of education as the rich people. 
Our people are law-abiding, and our government affords every pro¬ 
tection to the law-abiding citizen. If you would like some further 
information on the subject, I would be more than glad to supply you 
with it. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) W. M. Kavanaugh. 


[Copy.] 

No. 8.] City of Sacramento, State of California, 

Mayor's Office, May 29, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: In reply to your favor of the 23d instant I beg to say: 
Question 1. The white immigration to this section of the State has 
not been great, its influence though small, I think has been benefi¬ 
cial. The immigration from China and Japan, especially the latter, 
is generally held to be undesirable and we favor restriction. 

Question 2. I should say “no” as regards this State. 

Question 3. The congestion in our larger cities would be relieved, 
no doubt, by federal and state distribution, but I doubt its tendency 
to solve the problem of alleged excessive immigration. 

Question 4. The immigration to this State is required for both 
industrial and agricultural development, but particularly for the 
latter. 

Very truly, yours, 


(Signed) 


M. R. Beard. 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


159 


[Copy.] 

No. 9.] Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco, 

May 23, 1907. 

John J. D. Trenor, Esq., 

Produce Exchange Building, New York , N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Your esteemed inquiry of the 15th instant relating to 
the question of immigration has had my careful consideration. You 
do not indicate to what extent you wish me to discuss these questions, 
but I beg; to assure you of my deep interest in the matter and of my 
gratification that these important questions are having the serious 
consideration of the National Board of Trade. 

Query No. 1. The general influence of immigration to our State in 
recent years has been beneficial. 

Query No. 2. In my opinion, the tide of immigration has not 
reached the point of menacing the interests of the American laborer 
from a merely commercial standpoint. I believe that it has unques¬ 
tionably become a menace to the political and social welfare or our 
whole people. It occurs to me that the dangers may be prevented by 
requiring evidence as to the character of the immigrant. Could not a 
certificate be demanded, signed by competent officials from the coun¬ 
try from which the immigrant comes, showing that he has never been 
convicted of crime; that he has never been a charge by reason of 
illness, poverty, or infirmity, and requiring that this certificate cover 
a period of years prior to the date of presentation ? 

Query No. 3. A distribution of immigrants, which would relieve 
congestion in the larger cities, would, in my opinion, tend to solve 
the difficulties. In California there is great need of immigration for 
the development of our natural and agricultural resources, nearly all 
of which are developed during the summer and fall months. There 
is comparatively little manufacturing. Our foreign immigrants are 
almost entirely Chinese and Japanese. Their use has been a natural, 
if not a necessary, development, as they rarely have families and seem 
able to shift for themselves during a considerable period of the year. 
The antagonism to Orientals in California comes from the large cities, 
where they live quite apart—are unassimilable. Their peculiar forms 
of vice give many and lucrative opportunities for corrupting the police, 
the police courts, and the entire municipal government. If the 
Orientals could be sent directly to the agricultural districts in Cali¬ 
fornia and kept away from the larger cities, much relief would be 
afforded to the agricultural needs, and the sound objections to their 
immigration would be removed to a large extent. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) C. H. Bentley, President. 


160 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


[Copy.] 

No. 10.] State of Colorado, 

Executive Office, 

Denver, May 17, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

My Dear Sir: I have your letter of May 13 and make haste to 
answer. 

1. Your first question can not be answered easily. We have had a 
few immigrants who were a distinct harm to the life of our people. 
For the most part, however, the foreign people who have come to us 
have been an advantage to the State. 

2. I do not think the tide of immigration has reached a point where 
it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer in 
this State. We have needed 15,000 laborers for our mines and mills 
and farms during the last six months who could not be secured from 
any quarter whatsoever. 

3. I think it would be quite desirable that the federal authorities 
should cooperate with the States in relieving the congestion in the 
larger cities. We very much need wholesome and purposeful people 
for the development of the agricultural resources of this State. It is 
difficult to find a supply of men for our coal mines and for our metal¬ 
liferous mines and for our farms. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

(Signed) Henry A. Buchtel. 


[Copy.] 

No. 11.] The Denver Chamber of Commerce 

and Board of Trade, 

May 20, 1907. 

Mr. Jno. J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: In reply to yours of the 15th instant, the president of 
our chamber desires me to reply to your questions as follows: 

First. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in 
recent years been beneficial or otherwise ?—Beneficial. 

Second. In your opinion, has the tide of imiiiigration reached a 
point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer; if so, what method of restriction would you suggest ?—It has 
not reached such a point. 

Third. Do you, or do you not think that the fostering of an intelli¬ 
gent plan of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunction 
with those of the various States, would by relieving the congestion 
in our larger cites, tend to solve the problem of alleged excessive 
immigration ?—It might. 

Fourth. If, in your opinion, immigration is needed in your State, 
is it required for the development of your agricultural as well as your 
industrial resources ?—It will assist materially in the development of 
our agricultural, mineral, and industrial resources. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) Arthur Williams, 

Secretary. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


161 


[Copy.] 

No. 12.] State of Connecticut, 

Executive Department, 

Hartford, May 22, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: I am directed by His Excellency Governor Woodruff to 
say, in reply to your recent letter concerning the question of immi¬ 
gration, that in his opinion the general influence of immigration upon 
this State has been beneficial. 

The governor does not believe that the tide of immigration has 
reached a point yet where it constitutes a menace to the interests of 
American labor. He does believe that an intelligent distribution of 
immigration by federal authorities, in conjunction with those of 
various States, would be beneficial and would tend to solve the prob¬ 
lems that excessive immigration creates. 

He believes that immigration is beneficial, especially to the agri¬ 
cultural interests of Connecticut. 

I have the honor to remain, 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) Chas. E. Julin, 

Executive Secretary . 


NO. 13.] HARTFORD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 

In answer to my letter of May 15, 1907, the president of the Hart¬ 
ford Chamber of Commerce replied as follows: 

Question 1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State 
in recent years been beneficial or otherwise ? 

Answer. Yes; beneficial. 

Question 2. In your opinion has the tide of immigration reached a 

f )oint where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
aborer ? If so, what method of restriction would you suggest ? 

Answer. No. If possible, to so restrict it as to allow workers to 
come in, but to keep out drones and agitators and criminals. 

Question 3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an 
intelligent plan of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunc¬ 
tion with those of the various States would, by relieving the congestion 
in the larger cities, tend to solve the problem of alleged excessive 
immigration ? 

Answer. I do. 

Question 4. If, in your opinion, immigration is needed in your State, 
is it required for the development of your agricultural as well as your 
industrial resources ? 

Answer. It is required for both lines, as well as servants, but 
especially in the agricultural sections. 

49090—10-11 



162 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


[Copy.] 

No. 14.] The State Board of Agriculture, 

Dover, Del., May 22,1007. 

Hon. J. J. D. Trenor, 

New Y ork, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 13 to Governor Lea has been 
referred to this office for reply. In answer to your inquiry, I beg 
to say that Delaware has scarcely been touched by the tide of 
immigration in recent years, or at any time in our history. The 
comparatively small number of aliens who have come to Delaware 
have become industrious and useful citizens. From our own condi¬ 
tions, then, I would say that the tide of immigration has not reached 
a point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer. 

From my limited knowledge I should certainly think that the 
fostering oi an intelligent plan of distribution by the federal authori¬ 
ties in conjunction with those of the various States would tend to 
solve the problem of excessive immigration. Laborers are urgently 
needed in Delaware for the development of our agricultural resources. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) Wesley Webb, 

Corresponding Secretary. 


[Copy.] 

No. 15.] City of Wilmington, Del., May 25, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 23d 
instant making sundry inquiries about immigration, and answer your 
letter as follows: 

1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in recent 
years been beneficial or otherwise ? 

Answer. It has been beneficial. 

2. In your opinion has the tide of immigration reached a point 
where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer ? If so, what method of restriction would you suggest ? 

Answer. I do not find in this locality that labor has been injured 
by immigration. 

3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an intelligent 
plan of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with 
those of the various States would, by relieving the congestion in our 
larger cities, tend to solve the problem of alleged excessive immigra¬ 
tion ? 

Answer. I do. 

4. If in your opinion immigration is needed in your State, is it 
required for the development of your agricultural as well as your 
industrial resources ? 

Answer. It is required more for our agricultural than industrial. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) Horace Wilson, 

Mayor. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


163 


[Copy.] 

No. 16.] Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, 

Atlanta , Ga., May 20, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of May 15 : 

Georgia has had practically no immigration for two generations. 
The census of 1900 showed that the population was more than 99 per 
cent native born. 

Last year about 700 immigrants, who had drifted away from New 
York, found their way to Georgia. These are largely Greeks, Italians, 
and Russian Jews, with a sprinkling of Scotch, English, and Scandi¬ 
navians. 

It seems to be a sound proposition that immigrants would do better 
to spread over a productive soil, under fairly sanitary conditions, with 
good moral surroundings, than they could possibly do when herded in 
the slums of the great cities. 

Immigration or some other source of supply for labor is needed in 
our State. During the past year it was estimated that one-tenth the 
cotton machinery of the State was idle because labor could not be 
found to run it. This meant a loss of at least $400,000 a year in net 
earnings. The opinion of manufacturers who have looked into this 
subject is that other industries are as far short of labor as the cotton 
industry. 

Yours, very truly, (Signed) J. W. Pope, 

President. 


[Copy.] 

No. 17.] Georgia Railroad, 

General Manager’s Office, 
Augusta, Ga., May 27, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 20 was duly received. Regret my 
inability to reply earlier. 

In reply to your first question: There has been too little immigra¬ 
tion to Georgia for its effect to be felt except as stated in my last 
paragraph. The state authorities are now acting, but it remains to 
be seen what they can accomplish. 

In answer to your second question: In my opinion immigration 
does not constitute a menace to the interests of the American laborer, 
my information being that in almost all parts of the country manu¬ 
facturing and industrial enterprises, and some departments of rail¬ 
road work, are suffering for want of sufficient forces. 

My information is insufficient to enable me to discuss the plan of 
distribution indicated in the first part of your third question. Reply¬ 
ing to the latter part of it: My opinion is that this State needs more 
laborers in the mills, because the majority of them are only able to 
run 75 or 80 per cent of their machinery, and more farm laborers, 
because there are vast areas of tillable land uncultivated. 



164 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


In answer to your postscript: According to my observation, the 
great majority of immigrants who have come into this State within 
the last few years from States lying north of us have made good 
citizens, and, generally, good industrial workers; therefore the effect 
has been beneficial, but it must be borne in mind that the movement 
has been slow, and the number of immigrants comparatively small. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) Thos. K. Scott. 


No. 18.] 


[Copy.] 


Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company, 

Macon, Ga., May 28, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir: I have your favor of May 20, and in reply beg to answer 
as follows: 

1. Immigration to the States of Georgia and Florida has been so 
limited in recent years that it is difficult to state whether it has been 
beneficial or otherwise. However, whatever effect it has had has been 
beneficial, I think. 

2. The tide of immigration to the Southeast has not reached a 
point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer. Every laborer who desires work can secure it in this section 
at remunerative rates of pay. 

3. I think that industrious immigrants are needed in this State 
and in the State of Florida, both in connection with agricultural and 
industrial work. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) S. F. Parrott, 

Vice-President. 


No. 19.] 


[Copy.] 


(At New York.) 


Central of Georgia Railway Company, 


Macon, Ga., May 25,1907. 


John J. D. Trenor, Esq., 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of May 20: 

1. There has been too little immigration to our territory for us to 
form a definite opinion with reference to its value. There seems, 
no doubt, however, that it is very desirable for us to secure a good 
class of immigrants. 

2. I do not think that immigration has reached a point where it 
constitutes a menace to the American laborer, because there is a 
demand for labor in all departments far in excess of the supply. It 
is also true that many American laborers, since the great advance in 
wages, do not work full time. The development of the territory of 
this company has been limited to the labor supply for a long period. 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


165 


If we had had more labor, or if the labor in the territory had worked 
regularly, the effect upon the situation would have been quite ap¬ 
parent. 

3. I am unable to express an opinion of any value with reference 
to fostering an intelligent plan of distribution by the federal author¬ 
ities in conjunction with those of the various States for relieving the 
congestion in our larger cities by the distribution of excessive immi¬ 
gration. I have very grave doubts of ever converting into good 
laborers a large percentage of immigrants that are coming into this 
country and settling in our cities. Those who are disposed to work 
find it more desirable to accept employment in the large cities than 
to go to the smaller ones or to the country. Immigration, I am sure, 
is needed in our State, and it is required for the development of our 
agricultural as well as other industrial resources. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) J. F. Hanson, 

President. 


[Copy.] 

No. 20.] The Savannah Chamber of Commerce, 

Savannah, Ga., May 25, 1907 . 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir : Replying to your letter of the 15th instant, I will answer 
your questions as nearly as I can as follows: 

First. The immigration to Georgia up to the present year has been 
small in number, but . this year, owing to concerted action through 
the entire State, it is assuming some volume, and as labor is badly 
needed it has been decidedly beneficial. 

Second. I do not think the tide of immigration has reached the 
point where it has become a menace to the American laborer. With 
the rapid development of the country good labor is needed everywhere. 

Third. The congestion of immigration in New York City should be 
relieved by a proper distribution through other ports. I am glad to 
see the movement increasing through Baltimore, Galveston, and 
New Orleans, and I am confident by next fall the movement will 
start through Savannah. Immigrants are badly wanted in this 
State for both agricultural and industrial pursuits. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) W. W. Williamson, 

President. 



166 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


[Copy.] 

No. 21.] State of Idaho, 

Executive Office, 

Boise, May 31, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Answering the questions contained in your letter of 
May 13, permit me to say: 

& L 1. The immigration to this State within recent years has been of 
the best possible character. I will explain that immigration, when 
the term is applied to Idaho, only in the smallest possible sense means 
foreign immigration. Nearly all the people coming to this State are 
from the Middle West and from surrounding Pacific Coast States and 
western Canada. 

2. I feel that the tide of immigration is reaching a stage where it 
will soon become a menace, not so much to the interests of the laborer 
as to the life and integrity of the nation. 

3. Answering the second paragraph of your question, I am anxious 
to see this State secure immigrants, especially of the agricultural 
class. The State has a large area of productive land, which is await¬ 
ing, first, the employment of capital m the construction of canals and 
the development of power plants and the erection and maintaining 
of sugar mills, woolen mills, and other manufacturing plants; and, 
second, the cultivation of these lands by practical farmers. 

I can assure you that I heartily appreciate the importance of the 
work in which you are engaged, and trust your efforts and those of 
your associates may be entirely successful. 

Respectfully, 

(Signed) F. R. Gooding. 


[Copy.] 

No. 22.] Chicago, Burlington and 

Quincy Railway Company, 

Office of President, 

Chicago, May 23, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

National Board of Trade, Produce Exchange Building, 

New York City. 

Dear Sir: Responding to yours of the 20th instant. 

My belief is that immigration has been beneficial to the Missouri 
and the Mississippi valleys, promoting development of agricultural 
and other resources. In this large district, public lands opengto 
settlement by citizens and those declaring their intention to become 
such, and lands formerly held by individuals and for sale at very 
cheap prices, where natural farming may be pursued (that is to say, 
without irrigation) have been largely taken up, but lands may still 
be procured by persons able to pay fair prices, and immigrants able 
to buy would apparently be useful in developing agricultural and 
animal industries. ^ 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


167 


In the semiarid districts farther west, where irrigation is necessary, 
lands may be had, including water rights, at varying prices, and it 
would appear that immigrants with adequate means might prosper 
and promote development in these districts. 

The foregoing applies to immigrants with means adequate to their 
undertakings. Now, the settlement of large areas within the last 
few years by persons who have since become prosperous and inde¬ 
pendent, seems to have created a demand for farm help which com¬ 
petent and industrious laboring immigrants might supply with benefit 
to themselves and some profit to the country and its present land 
owning and farming occupants. At many times in the last few years, 
there has been a decided scarcity of good labor and at some periods 
it has been almost impossible to get labor at all, and it is probable 
that some important works have been greatly delayed and others 
may have been abandoned on this account, and industrial and com¬ 
mercial progress thereby retarded. 

So, in my opinion, immigration of a wholesale kind has been bene¬ 
ficial in the past and is desirable now, both of persons of means and 
good industrious laborers for all kinds of work. I can not give any 
opinion as to the best method of directing immigrants with or with¬ 
out means through particular channels or to the localities needing 
them; or for putting them in the country and keeping them out of 
the already congested city districts. 

This statement has been dictated without having had time or 
opportunity to do more, and it may be so general as to give no par¬ 
ticular information. It covers merely my impression on the subject 
as to a large western district. 

Yours, truly, (Signed) Geo. B. Harris, 

President. 


[Copy.] 

No. 23.] 

The Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, 

Office of the President, 

Chicago , May 29, 1907. 

Mr. J. J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: I have your letter of May 20, asking for certain infor¬ 
mation in regard to immigration. In a general way, I would reply 
to your queries as follows: 

1. Foreign immigration to the State of Illinois has been bene¬ 
ficial rather than otherwise. 

2. There seems to be a shortage of labor, and as long as that con¬ 
tinues we can afford to encourage immigration. 

3. I do not believe the federal authorities could distribute immi¬ 
gration to any better advantage than the immigrants are able to 
distribute themselves. At the time the immigrant reaches our port 
he knows just where he is going and what he is going to do. He has 
his ticket, and I do not believe any federal regulation could induce 
the majority of them to change their minds as to their destination. 

The lack of labor applies alike to the agricultural and industrial 
districts 

Yours, very truly, (Signed) S. M. Felton 



168 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


[Copy.] 

No. 24.] The Atchison, Topeka and, 

Santa Fe Railway System, 
President’s Office, Railway Exchange, 

9 Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, May 24, 1907. 
Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 22 
and in answer to your questions have to say 

First. I think the general influence of immigration to the West in 
recent years has been beneficial. 

Second. Whether or not the tide of immigration has reached a 
point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer depends upon the condition of business in this country in the 
future. Your question seems to limit inquiry to the State of Illinois, 
whereas I am speaking of conditions in the country through which our 
road passes and which covers 13 States and Territories. For the last 
three years and up to this time it has not been possible to obtain 
sufficient laborers either for our own work or for the agricultural 
communities along our line. 

Third. I am certainly in favor of some plan of distribution of immi¬ 
gration if it is to continue in its present large amount. Immigrants 
are not, as a rule, wanted in the large seaport cities, but the} 7 have been 
badly wanted in the West and Southwest, probably also in the North¬ 
west, although I am less familiar with that country. At the moment 
owing to the abandonment of a number of large enterprises and the 
hesitation about embarking capital in any enterprises, there seems to 
be plenty of labor for our purposes, but it is well known that it is 
difficult everywhere to obtain labor for the harvest and that domestic 
servants are still very scarce everywhere. It is also probably true that 
there are not enough coal miners in the country to supply the coal as 
wanted. Notwithstanding this there is still the serious question 
whether the enormous immigration of the past two years is desirable 
as a continuing matter, and whether a slight check in the develop¬ 
ment of this country might not result in a very unmanageable mass 
of unemployed and ignorant persons constituting a menace to the 
peace and safety of the country, and also it is a question, in my opinion, 
whether a little less speed in the development of the country might not 
be better borne than to risk the further admission of so large a mass 
of the ignorant, superstitious, and, perhaps, anarchistic, element of 
southern Europe. 

Yours, truly, (Signed) 


E. P. Ripley. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


169 


[Copy.] 

No. 25.] Rock Island Lines, 

Bureau of Immigration, 

Chicago, May 25,1907. 

John J. I). Trenor, Esq., 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Your esteemed favor of the 20th instant to our presi¬ 
dent, Mr. B. L. Winchell, has been referred to me for reply, and I 
take pleasure in answering herein your several queries. 

First. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in 
recent years been beneficial or otherwise ? 

The Rock Island-Frisco System of Railways embraces a vast 
network of about 15,000 miles of track, spread over 16 States, to wit, 
Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, 
Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, Louis¬ 
iana, Mississippi, and Alabama, all of them yet receptive, and most 
of them in absolute need of immigration for the further development 
of their agricultural, mineral, and industrial resources. The foreign 
element, especially of the agricultural population, in all of the States 
named constitutes the bone and sinew in most of the agricultural 
sections. Therefore, far from being a detriment, we consider the 
foreign immigration a benefit to our lines, and encourage it in every 
legitimate and lawful manner. 

Second. In your opinion has the tide of immigration reached a 
point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer ? 

The foreign immigration during the last fiscal year, ending June 30, 
1906, had reached the highest figures on record, viz, 1,100,735. It 
was made up largely of the laboring classes, and yet wages have 
already risen, being now higher than ever before in the history of the 
country and the demand for laborers greater. It appears that the 
greater the supply of unskilled labor, the greater the activity in 
industrial plants and, consequently, the greater the demand for 
skilled laborers and mechanics at higher wages. The men who 
perform the hard manual labor, the drudgery, are generally the 
foreigners, the men from southern and southeastern Europe, who 
now constitute the bulk of our immigration, while the skilled labor 
is done by Americans, and the demand for his labor is greater with 
an ample supply of unskilled labor at hand, because the latter stimu¬ 
lates the industrial activity. Therefore I can not see how American 
laborers should be injured by immigration. 

Third. Do you or do you not think that the fostering of an 
intelligent plan of distribution by the federal authorities in con¬ 
junction with those of the various States would, by relieving the 
congestion in our larger cities, tend to solve the problem of alleged 
excessive immigration ? 

Intelligent distribution according to the demand for immigration 
in the different sections and States is a most desirable measure for 
changing it from an apparent menace to an absolute benefit. The 
last annual report of the Federal Bureau of Immigration teaches that 
lesson by its comparative tables of the present distribution and by 
graphic charts. A rational distribution would take the wind out 
of the sails of the chronic opponents of immigration. At present 


170 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


85 per cent of the total annual influx of aliens distributes itself over 
eastern States and cities, where it is neither needed nor wanted, 
while the States of the great South from the Atlantic coast to the 
Rio Grande are clamorous for it. I doubt, however, whether a 
system of distribution enforced by the Government would be the 
proper remedy, as it would most likely be too arbitrary and dic¬ 
tatorial. A campaign of education should be carried on in the home 
countries of the intending emigrant, such as has been inaugurated 
by the immigration department of the Rock Island-Frisco Lines, 
and is now being commenced by other railway companies and by 
several southern States. As much as possible of the annual influx 
should be diverted from New York to the Gulf coast and other 
southern ports, whence the immigrant can easily and more cheaply 
reach the sections of our country where he is welcome and where 
his best opportunities are waiting for him. The volume of immi¬ 
gration from Europe to America will always be governed by legislative 
enactments, unless such enactments are made prohibitive. When 
our demand for laborers is sufficiently supplied and our vacant lands 
settled up—when in Europe emigration has so far reduced the excess 
population that the demand for laborers there can no longer be 
easily supplied and higher wages prevail, then the emigration will 
naturally sink to a low numerical level. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

(Signed) Jno. Sebastian, 

Passenger Traffic Manager. 


[Copy.] 

No. 26.] Illinois Central Railroad Company, 

Office of the President, 

Chicago, June 1, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: I have your favor of the 22d ultimo relative to the 
subject of immigration. 

In reply to your first question, “Has the general influence of im¬ 
migration to your State in recent years been beneficial or otherwise ? ” 
The Illinois Central system now reaches 13 States. Such of these 
States as are located north of the Ohio River have been greatly 
benefited by the coming of foreign families, who have aided especially 
in the industrial and agricultural development of each State. Ken¬ 
tucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, the 5 States 
south of the Ohio River reached by the Illinois Central, afford great 
opportunities for foreigners, and yet comparatively few of them have 
located there. Such as have, which includes Germans, Hungarians, 
Scandinavians, and Italians, have all done well. Indeed, those that 
have settled in the Southern States mentioned in the past five years 
are pleased, contented, and prosperous. 

Replying to question No. 2: I do not believe that immigration is 
in any way a menace to the interests of American laborers. The 
facts are that, throughout the country, there is a shortage of farm 
tenants and day laborers. That, and the further development of 
certain industries, will be greatly handicapped until more honest 
laborers, who are not afraid to work and who want to make homes 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


171 


for themselves and families, can be found, no matter of what nation¬ 
ality. I am not in favor of restricting immigration of honest, able- 
bodied men, who I know could and would improve their own condi¬ 
tions and be a blessing to this country. 

Replying to question No. 3: I do not believe there is an excess of 
immigration to the United States. On the contrary, in the southern 
territory in which this company is especially interested thousands of 
acres of as fine farm lands as can be found in this or any other section 
of the country will not be cultivated this season for want of laborers, 
and this is true of other sections of the United States. So long as 
such conditions obtain in the United States immigration can not be 
said to be excessive. It is quite possible that immigration is excessive 
in the cities of New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, but if the 
million and a quarter of foreigners coming to this country annually 
could be distributed throughout the South there is ample room for 
more families than now reside in those States. To my mind, what is 
especially needed is a concentrated and strong effort on the part of 
those who are interested in foreign immigration to have such families 
located, not in the cities, but in the country districts of the South, 
where are splendid opportunities for making themselves homes and 
help in the development of the country. The States of Mississippi 
and Louisiana have each about 20,000,000 acres of cultivable land, 
any 40 acres of which would make a nice farm for one of these for¬ 
eign families, and on which they could not only make a living, but 
accumulate a fair competence for old age. 

Yours, truly, 

(Signed) J. T. Harahan, 

President. 


[Copy.] 

No. 27.] Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

State of Illinois, 

May 21 , 1907. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of the 13th instant, addressed to Governor 
Deneen, in which you inquire as to the influence of recent immigration 
to this State, has been referred to the writer with instructions to 
advise you that he is very much interested in the subject. Without 
attempting a detailed answer to your questions, I am quite satisfied 
that I express the governor’s sentiments *when I say that the influ¬ 
ence of much of the immigration from foreign countries into Illinois 
in recent years has not been of a very desirable or beneficial character. 
Over 50 per cent of our foreign immigrants come from southern 
Europe, are of Slavic origin, and therefore represent a very low order 
of civilization. When it is considered that 25 per cent of the entire 
foreign immigration last year were unable to read or write, some idea 
of the material we have to deal with and the possible social and 
political problems which the immediate future will present can be 
obtained. This infusion of inferior blood threatens to affect the future 
life of our people, a consideration much more important than the 
present effects of their competition with the work and wages of our 
laboring classes, serious as that aspect of the case may be. The 
natural tendencies of the shiftless and vicious elements of foreign 
people is to settle in the large cities, and your suggestion of coopera- 



172 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


tion between the State and National Government to the end that 
they might be distributed is a good one. A better plan would be to 
prevent a considerable number of certain nationalities from coming 
here at all. This result, it seems, could be reached through some 
necessary amendments to our immigration laws, excluding absolutely 
the illiterate and lawless elements, and providing for a higher and 
more rigid examination regarding the educational, physical, and prop¬ 
erty qualifications. 

There is yet in Illinois a demand for the services, both in industrial 
and agricultural pursuits, of the right kind of foreigners. The class, 
who have no visible means of support, who may be induced to come 
here by a transportation company, who are strangers to our language 
and our laws, and who by their methods of life are unfitted to become 
good citizens, are not wanted. 

I feel confident that the agitation, now daily increasing, concerning 
the subject of immigration will at an early daj^ result in the formulation 
of needed rules and laws designed to prevent or minimize the evils 
resulting from the immigration of certain classes of people. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) David Ross, 

Secretary. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New YorTc, N. Y. 


[Copy.] 

No. 28.] Executive Office, 

Des Moines, Iowa, May 17, 1907. 

My Dear Sir: I have your letter of the 13th instant. My infor¬ 
mation with respect to the problem of immigration is only such 
information as an ordinary observer acquires, and my conclusions, 
therefore, can be of little value to one who has given the subject 
long and careful study. Iowa is peculiarly situated with reference 
to the matter, inasmuch as our dominant interest is agriculture, 
and the State has comparatively few citizens or residents of foreign 
birth, save those who live or work on farms. 

Your first question is, “Has the general influence of immigration 
to your State in recent years been beneficial or otherwise V* 1 
answer without hesitation that it has been clearly beneficial. In 
recent years we have, of course, received some undesirable acces¬ 
sions to our population, but not enough to affect the general moral 
level of the State. 

I prefer not to attempt an answer to your second question, for the 
reason that while I have decided views upon it, I feel that my inves¬ 
tigation has not been sufficient to warrant an opinion that may be 
used as a guide for others. 

For a like reason I feel that I can be of no help to you with regard 
to your question No. 3. 

Regretting that I am not able to be of more service to }mu in this 
matter, I am, 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) Albert B. Cummins. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, 

New York, N. Y. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


173 


[Copy.] 

No- 29.] State of Kansas, 

Topeka, May 17, 1907. 

My Dear Sir: I am overwhelmed with things to do and can not 
answer your questions at length, but will say in general that Kansas 
has been benefited and not injured by the immigration of the past. 
Our immigration has been, generally, home seekers of the best nation¬ 
alities. If labor in this State has felt any adverse effect it is not 
apparent, for it is almost impossible to get men to do the necessary 
work and they absolutely control w^ages. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) E. W. Hoch, 

Governor. 

To John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 


[Copy.] 

No. 30.] The Commercial Club of Topeka, 

Topeka, Kans., May 25, 1907. 

John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir: Yours of the 16th instant to the president of the 
Chamber of Commerce. The Commercial Club is the business organ¬ 
ization of the city, and I answer your questions regarding immigra¬ 
tion in the order in which presented. 

1. Decidedly beneficial. 

2. Immigration has not reached the point where it constitutes a 
menace to the interests of the American laborer, at least so far as the 
State of Kansas is concerned. 

3. I think that the fostering of an intelligent plan of distribution 
by the authorities, in conjunction with those of the various cities, is 
a solution to the problem of excessive immigration. There is plenty 
of labor of all kinds in the West, and it ought to be sent to these 
localities instead of . allowed to congregate in the larger cities. To 
illustrate: A number of years ago a sect known as the Mennonites 
came to Kansas from Kussia on account of religious and political 
troubles. Many of our people thought they were undesiraole but 
they have proved to be among the very best citizens of this State, 
frugal, industrious people. They have opened up extensive farms, 
established banks, and engaged in manufacturing. Most any class 
of European immigration placed in the West outside of the larger 
cities will make desirable citizens. Many Russian immigrants have 
located in this city and many of them w ork in the Santa Fe railway 
shops. They make not only good day laborers, but in many cases, 
good skilled mechanics. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) T. J. Anderson, 

Secretary. 



174 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


[Copy.] 

No. 31.] Senate Chamber, 

Maysville, Ky., May 22, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor. 

My Dear Sir : I acknowledge the receipt of your valuable letter of 
the 17th, and hasten to reply as far as I am able to do so from a 
limited amount of information. 

First. As to the general influence of immigration to our State. 

It has been of some benefit, but the limited numbers that have come 
makes it hard to form an estimate. Undoubtedly, the benefit in some 
sections has been great. If we could outlive the unsavory reputation 
our people have for high tempers and disposition to fly to arms it 
would attract immigration. I hope the day is not far distant. 

Second. I am firmly of the opinion that immigration has been a 
menace to labor. The cure is hard to accomplish, but the relief might 
be effected by stringent laws requiring certain educational and prop¬ 
erty qualifications, as well as a greater regard for the laws of our 
country; also to disabuse the mind that this is a country wallowing 
in wealth, and that while free, everyone is the builder of his own 
fortune. 

Third. As to an intelligent plan of distribution by federal author¬ 
ities in conjunction with the States. 

Undoubtedly, this would tend to curtail excessive immigration and 
bring the parties together for work as well as improvement. At this 
time our agricultural districts are badly in need of help, and good, 
willing workers are in demand and can command good wages. The 
industrial sources are not so badly off, owing to the fact that we are 
an agricultural State, but in the larger cities manufacturing indus¬ 
tries are on the increase and competent help is needed. 

Trusting that I have answered your questions in an intelligent man¬ 
ner, and that they may be of some service to you, I am, 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) William H. Cox. 


[Copy.] 

No. 32.] Louisiana State Board of 

Agriculture and Immigration, 

New Orleans, La., May 20,1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Your letter without date, addressed to Hon. Newton C. 
Blanchard, governor of the State of Louisiana, has been referred to 
me to reply. 

In answer to your first question, I beg to state that the general 
influence of immigration in Louisiana in recent years has been very 
beneficial. 

Second. So far, foreign immigration has been limited, and has not 
proved a menace to the interest of American labor. 

Third. I agree with your proposition. I believe intelligent distri¬ 
bution by the federal authorities in conjunction with those of various 
States would undoubtedly relieve the congestion of larger cities and 
solve the problem of excessive immigration. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


175 


Fourth. Immigration is needed in the State of Louisiana princi¬ 
pally to develop its agricultural resources. We have comparatively 
no manufactories except in the city of New Orleans, and there has 
never been any demand by these manufactories for immigrants. 

In the State of Louisiana there are 26,000,000 acres of land sus¬ 
ceptible to agricultural development, and only about 25 per cent of 
that number is under cultivation, and labor is scarce to even culti¬ 
vate that amount. 

I leave for Europe this evening in search of immigrants, mainly 
to develop the agricultural resources of the State of Louisiana. 

Hoping this meager reply will be of advantage to you in your 
search for information, I am, 

Respectfully, 


(Signed) Chas. Schuler, 

Commissioner. 


[Copy.] 

No. 33.] Bureau of Industrial and 

Labor Statistics, State of Maine, 

Augusta, May 27, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Yours of recent date to our governor, William T. Cobb, 
in relation td the influence of immigration, has been handed me for 
reply. 

In reply to question 1: I will say that the influence of immigration 
in our State has been beneficial as far as developing our material 
resources is concerned; in fact without foreign labor many of our 
large industries would decline very materially, and the installation 
of new industries would be prevented or very much retarded. In the 
construction of railroads and large pulp and paper plants we use 
almost wholly Italian labor, and our cotton-mill crews are very 
largely made up of French Canadians, the French becoming perma¬ 
nent residents, but most of the Italians are transient. As a rule our 
immigrants make very desirable citizens, although there are excep¬ 
tions, but it would be in a very small percentage of cases where we 
might say their influence was harmful. 

To question 2: I would say that we hardly feel the influence of the 
foreigner as a menace to American labor. There may be a few 
isolated cases where foreign labor has taken the place of American 
labor at a lower rate of wages, but such conditions soon pass away, 
for it does not take long to absorb and Americanize what foreigners 
come to our State. We have about 93,000 foreign-born population in 
Maine; all except 5,000 are from Canada (a majority of English 
descent), Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, and Germany. 

Your third question I should answer in the affirmative. I think the 
need of agricultural laborers in Maine is more pressing than in the 
manufacturing industries. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) Tiios. J. Lyons, 

Commissioner . 



176 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


* [Copy.] 

No. 34.] ^ Secretary’s Office, 

™ , Cardinal’s Residence, 

4-08 Norfh Charles Street, Baltimore, Md., June 7, IP07. 
Mr. John J. D. Trenor. 


Dear Sir: In answer to your favor of the 4tli instant, the cardinal 
desires me to send you the following replies: 

To your first question he would answer, yes; to your second, no. 
In regard to the third question he thinks it would be well to distribute 
the flood of immigration more generally, but doubts if it can be done, 
as every immigrant is free to go where he pleases. 

The cry of the farmers for more help, the complaint of manufac¬ 
turers and merchants that they can not get the necessary help, seems 
to be an answer to your last question. 

Hoping that this answer will be satisfactory, I am 
Yours, truly, 

W. T. Russell, 

Secretary. 


[Copy.] 

No. 35.] Maine Central Railroad Company, 

President’s Office, 

Boston, Mass., May 25, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your circular letter, which was received 
on the 24th instant: 

Speaking generally for all of the New England States—with the 
commercial conditions of which I have been familiar during the 
greater portion of my life—it is not my opinion that the general 
influence of immigration upon them during recent years has been 
otherwise than beneficial, and I have discovered nothing that leads 
me to suppose that the tide of immigration has reached a point 
where it is a menace to the interests of American labor in any of 
these States. 

From their point of view, I know of nothing that can be done by 
the federal authorities in conjunction with the several New England 
state governments that is necessary to relieve the congestion in 
our larger cities, or to solve the problem of alleged excessive immigra¬ 
tion to these States. The agricultural question in New England is, 
as you undoubtedly know, no longer paramount, but the demand 
for factory labor of various kinds is constantly increasing, and there 
is yet no indication that the supply of this labor through immigra¬ 
tion has reached the point where it is introducing any troublesome 
problems. 

I fully understand that industrial conditions in the New England 
States are quite different from those existing in the South and West, 
and that, therefore, a consideration of this question from our point 
of view can not be made a standard for dealing with it under con- 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


177 


ditions that undoubtedly exist in other and less densely populated 
States, and particularly in those where agriculture is the prepon¬ 
derating industry. 

Yours, truly, 

(Signed) Lucius Tuttle, 

President. 


[Copy.] 

No. 36.] Boston Chamber of Commerce, 

May 20, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th 
instant, and am pleased to give you what information I can on the 
lines of your inquiry. 

In reply to your first question, I feel that it is the consensus of 
public opinion that immigration in our State in recent years has been 
beneficial. It is hard to see how we could have gotten along without 
it, as there is a shortage of help in many lines that could not have 
been supplied in any other way than by immigration, and in some 
lines there is still need of a good deal more help. 

Our bureau of labor and statistics at present are engaged in a can¬ 
vass of Massachusetts and New England to determine just how great 
this need is, and in what lines of industry. Some publication on this 
subject is likely to be issued within the next thirty days, and I shall 
be pleased to supply you with it when the issue is made. 

My answer to the first question perhaps answers the second—that, 
so far as our State is concerned, the tide of immigration has not 
reached a point as yet where it constitutes a menace to the interests 
of American labor. 

The figures for 1906 show that 47 per cent of the immigrants into 
Boston remain within the State. 

We here are rather doubtful of the success of any attempt on the 
part of the federal authorities to relieve the congestion in our larger 
cities by any plan which calls upon immigrants when located in the 
cities to leave and go into the country. Apparently the majority 
of the immigrants prefer to remain in the cities, either large or small, 
to going into the country. If they are ticketed from home to country 
districts, they will go there, but if they once go into the cities it is 
said to be very hard to induce them to leave. 

I am told that there is a need of more help in the agricultural dis¬ 
tricts of our State, but that it is very hard to supply it by immigration. 

I am sending you under separate cover some publications of our 
bureau of statistics of labor for Massachusetts, which I think you may 
find of some interest to you in connection with your undertaking. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) John F. Crocker, 

President. 


49090—10-12 



178 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF HOLYOKE, MASS. 

In answer to my letter of May 23, 1907, the Hon. Nathan P. Avery, 
mayor of the city of Holyoke, Mass., replied as follows: 

Question 1. Has the general influence of immigration in recent years to your State 
been beneficial or otherwise? 

Answer. Beneficial. 

Question 2. In your opinion has the tide of immigration reached a point where it 
constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer? 

Answer. No. 

Question 3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an intelligent plan of 
distribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with those of the various States 
would, by relieving the congestion in the larger cities, tend to solve the problem of 
alleged excessive immigration? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 4. If in your opinion immigration is needed in your State, is it required 
for the development of your agricultural as well as your industrial resources? 

Answer. Both. 


[Copy.] 

No. 38.] Detroit Board of Commerce, 

May 24 , 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: The manufactures committee of this board gave con¬ 
siderable attention last summer to the relations of immigration to 
the labor market. Some of its conclusions apply to the queries 
which you recently addressed to the president of the board. 

1. The general influence of immigration to the State in recent 
years has been beneficial. There has been one drawback in Detroit, 
and to a less extent in one or two other cities; the immigration has 
produced unwholesome housing conditions. But neither the min¬ 
ing operations in the northern part of the State nor the manufac¬ 
turing operations and the municipal improvements of the cities 
could have been conducted without the large immigration. The 
bad housing conditions we hope to remedy. 

2. The industrial demands of the country have been so great the 
past three years that we have been able to absorb the immense 
immigration without reducing the wages of the American laborer 
or depriving him of work. 

In this city, and presumably in other cities of like class, the ten¬ 
dency of wages has been upward. But it appears as if we had about 
reached the limit. If a period of depression should follow the 
foreign mass would undoubtedly reduce the standard. It is impos¬ 
sible in short space to discuss the various methods of restriction 
that were proposed in congressional bills and that have been sug¬ 
gested to the Immigration Bureau. More effective measures on 
the other side to check assisted immigration would seem to be one 
feasible method. 

3. An intelligent plan of distribution would undoubtedly be exceed¬ 
ingly beneficial. This board, the Michigan Manufacturers’ Asso¬ 
ciation, and other organizations would gladly cooperate with the 
Government in carrying out such a plan. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


179 


4. If properly distributed, this State could take considerable 
immigration in the agricultural districts, but the manufacturing 
centers can absorb the most. 

If your investigations lead to definite results we shall be pleased 
to receive copies of the report. 

Respectfully, 

(Signed) Wm. Stocking, 

Committee Sectary. 


[Copy.] 

No. 39.] Grand Rapids Board of Trade, 

May 81, 1907 . 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Answering your favor of the 23d instant, permit me 
to reply as follows: 

1. During recent years the State of Michigan has not been in¬ 
fluenced, either favorably or otherwise, to an extent sufficient to 
arrest public notice. 

2. In my opinion the tide of immigration at present in evidence 
does not constitute a menace to the interests of the American laborer. 

3. Cooperative distribution of immigrants, conducted with equal 
fairness to all sections of the country and without the development 
of graft and favoritism, may be possible, but I know of no plan yet 
formulated by which such a result can be achieved. Could such a 
plan be evolved and successfully administered there can be no 
question as to its value not only to the larger cities, but to the lesser 
ones and all of our urban and agricultural district. 

4. Immigration is needed in Michigan, and particularly in the 
western half of our Commonwealth. Moreover, the Grand Rapids 
Board of Trade has the matter in hand locally, and hopes to be able 
to show results during the next year. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) H. D. C. Van Asmus, 

Secretary. 


[Copy.] 

No. 40.] Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic Ry Co , 

Mineral Range Railroad Co., 

Marguette, Mich., May 27, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 20, asking information in connection 
with immigration to this section of the country, received. I am 
inclosing you herewith an expression from Mr. E. W. MacPherran, 
our land commissioner. 

Yours, truly, 


(Signed) W. F. Fitch, 
President and General Manager . 




180 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. W. F. Fitch, 

President and General Manager. 

Dear Sir: Referring to letter herewith from Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 
a member of the National Board of Trade and Commission on Immi¬ 
gration of New York City, I would say relative to the questions 
proposed by him: 

First. The general influence of immigration on the Upper Peninsula 
of Michigan has been distinctly beneficial rather than otherwise. 

Second. I do not believe the tide of immigration has reached a 
point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer in northern Michigan. 

Third. I am emphatically of the opinion that the fostering of 
the plan of the distribution by the federal authorities acting with the 
State authorities might tend to solve the problem of the alleged 
excessive immigration, but am of the opinion that the alleged exces¬ 
sive immigration is such only by reason of the very large proportion 
of undesirable citizens immigrating; and that if proper restrictions 
were made and observed by the federal authorities the quality of the 
immigrant would be and could be improved. 

Immigration is needed in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan for the 
development of the agricultural interests and mining resources, 
but whether this immigration might better be from foreign countries 
or not, is a question which is quite open to discussion. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) E. W. MacPherran, 

Land Commissioner. 


[Copy.] 

No. 41.] State of Minnesota, 

Executive Department, 

St. Paul, May 17,1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New Yorlc City. 

Dear Sir: Permit me to acknowledge your favor of May 13 , in 
which you submit a number of questions touching immigration and 
ask that I reply to the same. 

As to question No. 1, I should say that immigration to this State 
in recent years has been very beneficial. The immigrants to this 
State have come almost entirely from the northern countries of 
Europe, and thousands of them have become well-to-do farmers, 
stock raisers, dairymen, and the like. Comparatively few have set¬ 
tled permanently in the larger cities of this State. In my opinion 
the tide of immigration has reached a point where it may constitute 
a menace to the interests of the American laborer should there be 
no restriction in the tide of cheap labor from western European 
countries. 

I certainly agree to the proposition that an intelligent distribution 
under federal authority would relieve the congestion in our larger 
cities, and possibly also provide a means of supplying the labor 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 181 

market in those parts of the country in which at various seasons of 
the year there is a real shortage of labor. 

Trusting that this fragmentary discussion may be of service to 
you, I am, 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) John F. Johnson, 

Governor. 


[Copy.] 

No. 42.] Executive Department, 

City of Minneapolis, Minn., May 28, 1907. 
Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Your favor of the 23d instant, on behalf of the presi¬ 
dent of the National Board of Trade and its committee on immigra¬ 
tion seeking information as to the effect of immigration into our 
State, etc., was duly received. In reply I beg to state that in view 
of the fact that I have not made any special study of this sub¬ 
ject and your questions seem to refer to conditions throughout the 
State, I shall take the liberty to refer your communication to the 
state labor bureau at St. Paul, whose province it is to make a 
special study of the conditions which your queries evidently con¬ 
template. 

I will state in a general way that there has never been any pro¬ 
nounced sentiment against immigration in this State, provided the 
objectionable classes are kept out. This, of course, includes the 
diseased, the incompetent and criminal classes. There is at present, 
however, a decided scarcity of common labor both in the agricultural 
and industrial departments of this State and I believe this is sub¬ 
stantially true throughout the entire territory west of the Mississippi 
River. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) J. C. Haynes, Mayor . 


[Copy.] 

No. 43.] The Public Affairs Committee 

of the Commercial Club, 

Minneapolis, May 21, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

New York City, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 16 to the chamber of commerce 
of this city has been turned over to this organization, as our chamber 
is not a public body. 

The questions you ask were considered by the executive committee 
of our club, and I was directed to advise you that in the opinion of 
its members, the influence of immigration to Minnesota in recent 
years has been beneficial. The members were also of the opinion 
that so far as this locality is concerned, immigration has not reached 
a point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of our laborers. 
The committee also expressed the opinion that so far as this State 




182 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


is concerned, further immigration is desirable for the development 
of both its agricultural and its industrial resources. 

Regarding the suggestion of a plan by which immigrants could be 
distributed so as to relieve the congestion in cities and sent to dis¬ 
tricts where they are necessary, our committee did not feel sufficiently 
conversant with the matter to offer suggestions, and I was directed 
to ask you to furnish us, if you cared to do so, a more definite out¬ 
line of such a plan. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed^ W. G. Nye. 


[Copy.] 

No. 44.] State of Minnesota, 

Bureau of Labor, 

St. Paul, June 6, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Yours of the 23d ultimo in relation to the matter of 
immigration, addressed to Hon. J. C. Haynes, has been referred to 
this office for answer. Probably the influence of foreign immigration 
is less felt in this section than it is in the more densely populated sec¬ 
tions of the East. In Minnesota we gladly welcome all intelligent 
foreign immigrants. Replying to your questions categorically: 

1. The general influence of immigration in this State in recent years 
has been beneficial. As a matter of fact I believe that we get the 
cream of the foreign invasion, a large percentage being Scandinavian, 
German, with a sprinkling of Finns, all of whom make good citizens. 

2. In this State immigration has not reached a point where it con¬ 
stitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer. In the 
large cities of Minnesota common labor to-day is receiving from $1.75 
per day up, and it is hard to supply the demand. 

3. We favor the fostering of an intelligent plan of distribution by 
the federal authorities; or, in other words, we are in favor of some 
plan which will give the agricultural States more of the really desir¬ 
able element. I do not feel that at any time the United States should 
permit ignorant or criminal immigration. In this State immigration 
is needed, both for agricultural and industrial resources. 

Yours, very truly 

(Signed) E. J. Lynch, 
Assistant Commissioner of Labor„ 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


183 


[Copy.] 

No. 45.] Great Northern Railway Company, 

President’s Office, 

St. Paul, Minn., May 20, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Your favor of the 15th instant, making certain inquiries 
concerning immigration and labor, duly received, and I take pleasure 
in sending you the following information: 

The general influence in the past upon Minnesota and the North¬ 
west has been beneficial. At the time of the last census the per¬ 
centage of foreign-born population in North Dakota was 35.4, the 
highest in the United States. In Minnesota it was 28.9, in Montana 
27.6, and in Washington 21.5. To immigrants, therefore, in large 
degree, this section owes its development. 

Immigration can not threaten seriously the interests of American 
labor as long as there is a continuous and active demand for labor, 
at high prices, which remains unsatisfied. The labor famine is general 
throughout the Northwest. It affects agriculture, mining, railroad 
building, and every other form of industry. 

The earlier settlers in Minnesota who are now getting too old to 
cultivate their lands themselves are selling their farms. By the 
consolidation of these large farms are forming containing several 
hundred acres each, to be cultivated by machinery which can not 
be used to advantage on 160 acres. In northern Minnesota and in 
North Dakota many of these large farms may be found as a product 
of labor scarcity. 

The children of the farmer are mostly ambitious to get an educa¬ 
tion, with the idea that it will enable them to live without actual 
work. 

All occupations suffer from the scarcity of manual labor. The 
Government has to pay as high as $2.50 to $3 per day for men to 
work on its reclamation projects. Railroads can not get men for 
new construction necessary to the prompt transaction of the coun¬ 
try’s business. Owners of coal mines can not find men to work them. 
There was a coal famine in Seattle last winter, although the coal 
mines are but a few miles away. 

The coal production in Montana of 1905 was 1,467,707 tons against 
1,483,728 tons in 1900, while the total coal production of the country 
increased more than a hundred million tons. Washington’s coal 
product in 1905 was 15 per cent greater than in 1900, and had de¬ 
creased in each of the two preceding years. 

More manual labor is needed all over the country, and especially in 
the Northwest. The demand comes not only from the workshop 
but from the farm, the mine, and from every branch of industry. 
Any plan of distribution that would divert immigrants from the con¬ 
gested districts to those where labor is scarce and high would be 
beneficial. 

Yours very truly, 


(Signed) 


Jas. J. Hill. 


184 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


[Copy.] 

No. 46.] Chicago Great Western Railway Co., 

Office of President, 

St. Paul, Minn., May 22, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: I have only time to make a hasty reply to your letter 
of May 20. 

When I first commenced railway construction, thirty-odd years 
ago, the Irishman did the heavy, hard work of shoveling. As time 
went on the Irishman settled down on farms and refused to do this 
hard work, and the Swedes and Norwegians came in and took the 
place of the Irishmen. Now the Swedes have got farms and the only 
men available for the hard work are the Italians. 

During this period of evolution a great deal of machinery, like 
the steam shovel, has been introduced, which does a large part of 
the shoveling; but still there is some shoveling and kindred work 
which must be done by men, and if the Government is going to shut 
out of the country all the Italians, as well as the Chinese and Jap¬ 
anese, who are willing to do this work, not only the construction of 
new railways, but the maintenance of such railroads as exist, will 
become impossible. It is not a question of wages. The Italians 
demand as much wages, or more, than was ever paid to the Irishmen 
or the Swedes. 

Yours, truly, (Signed) A. B. Stickney, 

President. 


[Copy.] 

No. 47.] Minneapolis, St. Paul and 

Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, 

May 27, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Referring to yours of the 22d in regard to immigration 
to this country. 

In my opinion much immigration is yet needed, if of the desirable 
kind, to settle up our States, Minnesota, Dakota, and Wisconsin, 
and every effort possible should be made to keep them out of the 
cities. Put them into the country, where land is cheap, where they 
can become better citizens and be of more use to this country. 

We have too many immigrants that stay in the city; they are 
only a detriment. We can receive many good foreigners in this 
country yet without any detriment to the labor market 
Yours, truly, 

(Signed) E. Pennington, 
Vice-President and General Manager. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


185 


NO. 48.] STATE OF MISSOURI. 

In answer to my letter of May 13, 1907, the Hon. Joseph W. Folk, 
governor of the State of Missouri, through the bureau of labor 
statistics, replied as follows: 

Question 1. Has the general influence of immigration to your 
State in recent years been beneficial or otherwise ? 

Answer. It has, in Missouri, been rather beneficial than otherwise. 

Question 2. In your opinion has the tide of immigration reached 
a point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer ? If so, what method of restriction would you suggest ? 

Answer. Foreign immigration has not yet by any means become a 
menace to American labor in Missouri. I can not speak for the other 
States. 

Question 3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an 
intelligent plan of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunc¬ 
tion with those of the various States would, by relieving the con¬ 
gestion in our larger cities, tend to solve the problem of alleged excess¬ 
ive immigration? 

Answer. Yes; unquestionably, the plan is a good one. 

Question 4. If in your opinion immigration is needed in your State, 
is it required for the development of your agricultural as well as your 
industrial resources ? 

Answer. It is needed chiefly for the development of the fruit and 
dairy interests of the Ozark region. 


[Copy.] 

No. 49.] Office of Mayor, 

Kansas City, Mo., June 5, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

My Dear Sir: I have your letter of May 23. Kansas City has 
not been very much affected by immigration. I am not familiar 
throughout the State along this line. I do not believe I could 
answer your questions in such way as to aid you in getting at the 
conclusions which you wish to reach. 

Our own city, with whose conditions I am thoroughly familiar, 
is not yet a great manufacturing city. We sometimes regret that 
in talking among ourselves. There has not yet been any large 
immigration into the city. I can not believe that as a city, we feel 
the immigration or feel the need of it at this time. As I have said, 
my knowledge of conditions throughout the State, is not such as to 
put me in a position to give you answers which might be relied upon 
as of any great value. 

Very trulv, yours, 

(Signed) 


H. M. Beardsley, Mayor. 



186 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


NO. 50.] STATE OF NEBRASKA. 

In answer to my letter of May 13, 1907, the Hon. George L. Shel¬ 
don, governor of the State of Nebraska, replied as follows: 

Question 1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in recent years 
been beneficial or otherwise? 

Answer. Beneficial. 

Question 2. In your opinion, has the tide of immigration reached a point where it 
constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer? 

Answer. No. 

Question 3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an intelligent plan 
of distribution by the federal authorities, in conjunction with those of the various 
States, would, by relieving the congestion in our larger cities, tend to solve the prob¬ 
lem of alleged excessive immigration? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 4. If, in your opinion, immigration is needed in your State, is it required 
for the development of your agricultural as well as your industrial resources? 

Answer. Laboring men. 


[Copy.] 

No. 51.] State of New Jersey, 

Executive Department, 

May 15, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

My Dear Sir: I have your favor of May 13, propounding various 
questions on the matter of immigration. I do not feel that I can 
answer these questions categorically yes or no and yet be true to 
the exact situation. I therefore answer them generally. 

Under present conditions the demand for labor in the various 
fields of activity is so great that it can not be supplied by our own 
people alone and desirable immigration seems to be necessary to aid 
in the natural development of our resources and industries. vVe have 
in the southern part of our State several Jewish and Italian colonies 
that have been very successful in agricultural development and have 
made excellent citizens. At Woodbine there is an agricultural col¬ 
lege aided by Baron de Hirsch, which is doing most excellent work 
in theoretical, experimental, and practical agriculture. 

Foreign immigration brings troubles in its wake. Our courts and 
our prisons are unfortunate witnesses to the truth of this statement. 
It is probable, however, that this unfortunate feature of our immigra¬ 
tion is due to the lack of knowledge on the part of our immigrants of 
our laws and institutions and to the fact that they are not properly 
looked after by state and municipal authorities. They are very apt 
to fall into the hands of sharps, who regard these newcomers as their 
legitimate prey. In view of this situation New Jersey has taken a 
step which, we think, will greatly remedy the ills of immigration and 
will set the pace for other States to follow. 

In 1906 the legislature adopted a concurrent resolution authorizing 
the governor to appoint a commission of three persons, residents of 
the State, to inquire into and report upon the general condition of 
the immigrants coming into or resident within the State. That 
commission reported that foreigners coming to this country were 
absolutely dependent upon each other to obtain a knowledge of the 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


187 


conditions surrounding their lives in the home of their adoption; that 
there was no way for the foreigner to learn the laws of this country, 
his rights and privileges or his duties as a citizen until he could 
speak English. Many of them learned the laws by breaking them. 

To remedy this unfortunate condition the State has appropriated 
S10,000 to begin the work of educating the immigrant. Pamphlets 
on the history and principles of the United States and the state 
government will be printed in English and every such foreign language 
as may be necessary to reach the foreign element. Night schools 
will also be established in different centers throughout the State for 
the study of the English language and civil government. 

This is but a beginning, and it is hoped that the results will prove 
so beneficial as to warrant the establishment of a permanent policy 
for the enlightenment of the foreign population. 

Very sincerely, yours, 

(Signed) E. C. Stokes. 


No. 52.] Executive Office, 

Newark, N. J., May 24, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of the 23d instant, I beg to say: 

1. I believe that the general influence of immigration to our State 
in recent years has been beneficial, viewed in the larger sense. Not 
only have we secured a great many industrious and saving mechanics 
and tradesmen, but we have been able to undertake enterprises and 
engage in development work on a scale that would not have been 
possible without the aid of our foreign-born citizens. Furthermore, 
I find that the great majority of the immigrants are readily susceptible 
to the influence of American institutions, and that the second genera¬ 
tion particularly presents a fine body of citizenhood. 

2. I do not think immigration has reached such a point that it has 
become a menace to the interests of American labor. In New 
Jersey, despite a large foreign-born population, we are in constant need 
of day laborers, American-born and even immigrants who have been 
here for some time generally ascending in the scale of life. There is 
also an acute demand for women for domestic service, which could not 
be even in a measure supplied were it not for the constant tide of 
immigration. As it is, many of our factories employ female help to a 
large extent and draw not only from the centers of population m the 
cities, but also from the suburban and rural districts, and even from 
the landing places of the immigrants. 

I would, however, be in favor of adopting rigid methods to restrict 
the immigration of all who are of criminal tendency or who are likely 
to become public charges upon the community. 

3. I believe that the fostering of an intelligent plan of distribution 
by the federal authorities in conjunction with those of the various 
States would tend largely to solve the problem by relieving the con¬ 
gestion in such cities as suffer from that condition. 

So far as I am able to observe I am of the opinion that the farmers 
of New Jersey must depend in large measure upon immigrants for aid 



188 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


in their operations. There is, I have reason to believe, a very great 
scarcity of farm laborers in all the agricultural sections of the State, 
due to the fact that our industrial development has proceeded so 
rapidly as to strip the agricultural regions of able-bodied men. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) Jacob Haussling, Mayor. 


[Copy.] 

No. 53.] The Board of Trade of the 

City of Newark, N. J., 

May 20, 1907. 

John J. D. Trenor, Esq., 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir: Acknowledging the receipt of yours under date of May 
16 with reference to the question of immigration, would respectfully 
report that the whole subject is one of vital importance and worthy 
the attention which I note is being paid to it by the National Con¬ 
gress, who have appointed a committee of its members to make a 
thorough investigation of the subject. The said committee, I believe, 
are about to leave for Europe, where they will study the matter at 
short range. 

Answering your questions in part, would say: 

First. Immigration has been very welcome to this State, and to this 
city particularly, where our manufacturing interests are creating con¬ 
stant demands for help. 

Second. A desirable class of emigrants from middle Europe for 
laboring uses should be invited. 

Third. It seems to me that the immigrant is better assimilated in 
our cities than would be the case if located in rural sections throughout 
the various States. 

The children of the Italian immigrants of twenty years ago are 
good American citizens to-day, as is the case with the children of Ger¬ 
man, Irish, Scotch, and other nationalities. 

Hoping this may be of some little help to you, I beg to remain, 
on behalf of the board, 

(Signed) Jas. M. Reilly. 


[Copy.] 

No. 54.] Mayor’s Office, 

Trenton, May 24 , 1907 . 

John J. D. Trenor, Esq., 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of May 23, 1907, I would say 
that I am not prepared to speak as to the general influence of immi- 

f ration to our State; as to the influence on our city, it has been very 
eneficial. We have a class here that is industrious and thrifty, and 
many of them are becoming owners of property. 

As to the balance of your letter, I most frankly say that I have not 
given much thought and do not know that I could help you. In a 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


189 


general way I have always felt that every able-bodied man with good 

E hysical and moral health who comes to us from the foreign lands is a 
enefit to this country. 

Yours very truly, 

(Signed) F. W. Gnichtel, Mayor. 


[Copy.] 

No. 55.] Albany Chamber of Commerce, 

95 State Street, 
Albany, N. Y., May 20, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your favor of the 16th instant, asking 
certain questions regarding the immigration problem. In reply to 
the same let me say that we are hardly in a position to answer your 
questions. We believe, however, that the immigration to our State 
nas been beneficial, and we hardly feel with the present prosperous 
times that this immigration has reached a point where it is a menace 
to the interests of the American laborer. 

We believe that the question of distribution should be very care¬ 
fully considered, as from the small amount of study which we have 
given the question we believe that a large portion of these immigrants 
stop in the cities where they are not needed. 

Our state department of agriculture at the present time is endeav¬ 
oring to persuade some of the men who come into our country to come 
to Albany, and by them to be sent into the farming communities in 
this vicinity needing help. This is in an experimental stage, conse- 
quentty there is not much information of value to be had on the 
subject. 

I wish that I could be more explicit in my answers. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) William B. Jones, 

Secretary. 


[Copy.] 

No. 56.] Executive Department, 

City of Binghamton, 

June S, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of recent date covering the 
question of immigration, would state that my opportunities for 
studying this question have been very limited, Binghamton being an 
inland city of not over 50,000 inhabitants, possessing a large rural 
district from which to obtain its workmen, and therefore does not 
face the same social and industrial conditions found in the large coast 
cities. 

In answer to question 1, would say that up to the present time 
immigration to this State has been beneficial, and it has been neces¬ 
sary m order to carry out the vast enterprises entered into by indus- 




190 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


trial promoters. At the present time, however, there is some question 
in the minds of many as to whether a check should not be placed upon 
the constantly increasing flow of immigration from southern Europe. 
When the great improvements now under way are completed thou¬ 
sands of immigrants will drift back into the cities disqualified to take 
up any class of work higher than that of a laborer, and then the State 
will face the problem of caring for them. 

Replying to question 3, would say that in my opinion immigra¬ 
tion will not aid in developing the agricultural industry, inasmuch 
as the work on our farms is hard to perform and necessitates long 
hours, and it is not the kind of work that appeals to the class of 
immigrants being received in this country at the present time. 

With regret that I am unable to more intelligently discuss the 
questions referred to, I am, 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) H. H. Woodbury, Mayor. 


[Copy.] 

No. 57.] Mayor’s Office, 

Elmira, N. YMay 28, 1907. 

John J. D. Trenor, Esq., 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Replying to yours 23d. I have no detailed statistical 
information, the result of scientific inquiry as to the effect in the State 
of New York of foreign immigration the past few years. I have, 
however, a general impression which is, that up to a given volume of 
immigration the introduction of foreigners has been serviceable to the 
State. Of course, there are evils connected with it, particularly in 
the city of New York, and the great question is to properly distribute 
the immigrants. The truth is, Americans will not work at agricul¬ 
tural and laboring work, and internal improvements as well as the 
product of agriculture must depend more or less upon laborers that 
come to us from abroad. 

I am of opinion that the tide of immigration has reached a point 
where it should be somewhat regulated. It does not, so far as I know, 
constitute a menace to the interests of the American laborer because 
America does not, as is stated in the answer to the first question 
above, supply any considerable number of common laborers. 

As to skilled labor, the proposition may have a different appear¬ 
ance. The stubbornest fact we have to face now-a-days is the one of 
skilled mechanics. If the introduction of such by immigration could 
be prohibited, a .temporal industrial damage might result, but pos¬ 
sibly the educational authorities or those in control of the common- 
school system of the country might have their eyes opened to the truth 
that the true system of education is the preparation of pupils for the 
particular industrial career they are likely to or ought to follow. 

I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the regulation of 
immigration to suggest measures, but if it could be amicably arranged, 
our own inspection and regulation at the foreign ports of embarkation 
would seem to be a good measure, and, in addition, the inspection of 
the immigrants on their arrival, as is now done. Any immigrant 
likely to be self-supporting by legitimate industry should be admitted. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


191 


The question of distribution of immigrants and others who congest 
the great cities is a very serious and intricate one. A conjunction of 
state and federal authorities in devising and executing an intelligent 
plan of exclusion might facilitate it, but humanity is gregarious, the 
the immigrants have lived in congested districts abroad very largely, 
and it will be, I apprehend, a very difficult matter to get them upon 
the land and into suburban regions. It is a matter of the greatest 
importance and of utmost intricacy. I am not competent to advise 
about it. 

Respectfully, 

(Signed) Z. R. Brockway, 

Mayor. 


[Copy.] 

No. 58.] Delaware, Lackawanna and 

Western Railroad Company, 

Office of the President, May 21, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of the 20th received and I note your 
inquiries. I will reply to them categorically, as made. 

1. I consider that the general influence of immigration in recent 
years to the several States through which our line runs has been highly 
beneficial. 

2. I do not consider that the tide of immigration has reached the 
point as yet where it constitutes in a measure a menace to the interests 
of the American laborer, so called. I do not consider that condi¬ 
tions are such as to require that any restrictions shall be placed upon 
the immigration into this country of healthy, able-bodied, intelligent 
foreigners coming from any of the European countries. 

3. I think in many ways it would be a very great advantage to the 
country at large and to the cities in particular should the General 
Government formulate an intelligent plan of distribution of immi¬ 
grants coming into the country, and carry out same on lines that are 
feasible and will tend to relieve the congestion which exists more or 
less in the larger cities in the country. 

So far as the States through which our line runs are concerned, 
immigration is not, in my opinion, required for the development of 
the agricultural resources of these States as much as to carry on the 
operation of the industries thereof. 

Referring to the postscript to your letter, I consider that the effect 
of immigration on the general development of the commercial and 
industrial resources of the States and communities through which 
our system is located has been very great and highly beneficial to 
those interests and has been of the utmost advantage to the develop¬ 
ment of our country at large. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

(Signed) W. H. Truesdale, 

President . 



192 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


[Copy. 

No. 59.] Greenwich Savings Bank, 

246 and 248 Sixth avenue, 

SE. corner Sixteenth street, 

New York, May 20 , 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building , New York City. 

My Dear Sir: I would reply to your letter of inquiry of the 17th 
instant as follows: 

What would our country be to-day without immigration? Are 
not the lazy and shiftless rather given to remaining at home, and the 
bright, active young people those who seek a new country? A 
glance at the newcomers at the Grand Central Station, bound for the 
Eastern States, convinces one that generally they are of good appear¬ 
ance and, in many instances, of some means. Our cities should not be 
their destination, but the country places, especially the vast West, 
with its immense prairies awaiting the willing’ toiler. But immigra¬ 
tion should be restricted, and the vicious and degraded excluded. 
Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) James Quinlan. 


[Copy.] 

No. 60.] No. 113 West Fortieth Street, 

New York, May 25, 1907. 

My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 23d instant has just reached me, 
and I am glad to learn from it that the National Board of Trade has 
taken up the question of immigration. 

Of course I am unable to speak for this State, and I recognize the 
congestion of various kinds which is likely to occur in New York from 
the indiscriminate admission of vast multitudes from older countries. 

But, unfortunately, we “set up in business/’ as the phrase is, by 
proclaiming ourselves “a refuge for the oppressed,” and there would 
seem to be a grotesque incongruity in slamming the doors in the face 
of men who are seeking on these shores for the opportunity to earn 
their own bread and to free themselves from tyrannical rule. 

For this reason I should think that the proposition to initiate some 
mechanism by which a wise distribution could be effected is most 
opportune, and indeed imperative. Surely there is a place on this 
continent for great multitudes of people who can earn an honest liv¬ 
ing and secure a decent home. 

Very faithfully, yours, 

(Signed) 

John J. D. Trenor, Esq. 


Henry C. Potter. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


193 


[Copy.] 

No. 61.] Frederick D. Underwood, 

11 Broadway, 

New York, May 23, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of the 20tli instant, embodying 
your questions in regard to immigration, and taking up the latter in 
their sequence: 

1. The general influence of immigration in my State, New York, 
and in some other States, with the conditions in which I am perhaps 
more familiar than in New York, has been beneficial, as is evidenced 
by the fact that during the past five years American skilled workmen 
and artisans have been employed to an unparalleled extent at the 
highest wages ever known. This was made possible largely by the 
advent of the immigrant. 

2. The tide of immigration has not reached a point where it con¬ 
stitutes a menace to American labor. In reality there are no Ameri¬ 
can laborers. 

3. A plan whereunder the distribution of immigrants would be 
regulated by the federal authorities might prove beneficial, thereby 
taking them into the smaller towns. 

Immigrants are needed in the State of New York to till the farms 
that are now practically abandoned, for reasons that are so obvious 
as to require no portrayal herein. 

Noting the postscript to your letter: The influence of immigra¬ 
tion, in the past, in the development of the commercial and industrial 
resources of railways and communities in general, is so apparent as, 
in my opinion, to make any portrayal mere redundancy. The im¬ 
provements in terminal facilities, buildings and permanent roadway 
of the railways, that have been made in the past five years would 
have been impossible without the aid of immigrant labor. From the 
nature of the employment, railways are able to work large gangs of 
men who do not speak or understand a word of English, and these 
men do not take the place of others. There were no men available, 
which fact made their importation imperative. This made it pos¬ 
sible, as stated above, for artisans of more skill and knowledge to 
engage in work more congenial to themselves and better adapted to 
their physical acquirements, at an increased compensation. 

The cry that immigration is a menace to America is chimerical. 
In some large cities there is congestion, but it is purely a local condi¬ 
tion. The whole country needs men to till the land and work in the 
forests and mines. 

No substantial advance has been made in the matter of bettering 
the highways during the past twenty-five years, owing to the scarcity 
of labor. The State of New York is backward in this respect, owing 
to the fact that the city of New York and other large cities have 
absorbed any labor that might have been utilized. If the good-roads 
movement, which is so essential to the comfort, welfare, and wealth 
of the urban communities, is to obtain a foothold, it must be done 
through the medium of inexperienced and unskilled labor, and for 

49090—10-13 


194 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


that we must look to the immigrant. There is yet plenty of work 
for the men who want to work. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) F. D. Underwood. 


[Copy.] 

No. 62.] 56 Beaver Street, 

New York, May 23, 1907. 

John J. D. Trenor, Esq., 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir : I have your letter of the 22d instant. 

1. My personal view, in answer to your first question, is that the 
general influence of immigration to New York m recent years has, 
on the whole, been beneficial. 

2. The tide of immigration can not, in my judgment, reach a point 
in a comparatively new and rapidly developing section where it con¬ 
stitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer. On the 
contrary, I consider that the demands and restrictions ostensibly 
imposed in the interest of American labor are a decided menace to 
the fullest and most economical development of the country. 

3. In answer to your third proposition, I believe that the laws of 
supply and demand offer the only effective and rational means for 
regulating the intelligent distribution of labor. The larger cities 
afford the greatest opportunities for employment, and in that sense 
there is congestion in certain centers, and there always will be. 

Immigration is needed in New York State for the development of 
agricultural as well as industrial resources, and, in my opinion, alien 
labor laws, the restriction of immigration, and all labor organization 
legislation of that kind is unjust, wicked, and illiberal. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) T. P. Fowler. 


[Copy.] 

No. 63.] The Rome Electrical Company, 

Rome, N. Y., May 18, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiry of May 16 to the president of 
the Rome Chamber of Commerce, I will answer your questions as 
fully as I can with as few words as possible. 

Question 1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State 
in recent years been beneficial or otherwise ? 

Answer. So far as developing industries doing municipal and con¬ 
tract work—such as street work, laying of water and sewer pipes, and 
filling the demand for laboring jobs—it has been beneficial. 

2. In your opinion, has the tide of immigration reached a point 
where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer ? If so, what method of restriction would you suggest ? 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


195 


Answer. I believe every laborer of any nation can secure employ¬ 
ment at good wages in this country. So far as our home town is 
concerned, it is impossible to get laborers enough to keep our manu¬ 
facturing plants running full. There is, to be sure, an undesirable 
class whose coming to our shores should be restricted, or prohibited 
entirely, but the better classes from northern Italy and other parts 
of Europe are very necessary to this country. 

3. Do you or do you not think that the fostering of an intelligent 
plan of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with 
those of the various States would, by relieving the congestion in our 
larger cities, tend to solve the problem of alleged excessive immigra¬ 
tion ? 

Answer. I believe it would be of great benefit to the country. 

4. If in your opinion immigration is needed in your State, is it 
required for the development of your agricultural as well as your 
industrial resources ? 

Answer. It is. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) Geo. A. Clyde, 
Chairman Executive Committee, Rome Board of Trade . 


[Copy.] 

No. 64.] Office of the Mayor, 

Schenectady, N. Y., June \, 1907 . 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir: In response to your inquiries of May 23 I would say that 
in our neighborhood immigrants have been used largely in the con¬ 
struction of the trolley lines and in doing other similar work, for 
which native help can not be readily obtained. 

The condition of the labor market here is such in this rapidly 
developing locality that it is difficult to obtain labor in adequate 
amount, and it has been advantageous to both the immigrant ana the 
community that laborers could be supplied from the immigrant 
class. 

I am inclined to think that the immigrant problem is one of proper 
distribution, and if the immigrant could be located wisely it would 
be found that he was an advantage and not a detriment. 

In our State the tendency of the able-bodied and intelligent farm 
hands is toward the cities to engage in industrial pursuits, and if the 
immigrant classes could be induced to take up farming it would be a 
good thing. 

The foreign element in our city has been increased very greatly of 
late years from Italy and Slavic countries. 

The older German and Irish immigrants are now engaged in a higher 
class of activities and the new elements do not enter into competition 
with them in the main, but perform work which these earlier immi¬ 
grants now consider themselves rather too good to take up. 

The new elements are rapidly assimilating, and with occasional 
marked exceptions appear to develop into good citizens. The Italians 



196 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


and Poles show strong patriotic tendencies toward the land of their 
adoption and establish homes and build churches in our midst. 
Yours, respectfully, 

(Signed) Jacob W. Clute, 

Mayor. 

(Signed) James R. Truax, 

Executive Secretary. 


[Copy.] 


No. 65.] Union College, Schenectady, N. Y., 

Office of the President, 

May 17, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building , New York City. 

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of inquiry of May 16, 
addressed to the president of the Schenectady Chamber of Commerce. 

I find it difficult to reply definitely and satisfactorily to your sev¬ 
eral questions and would like to take time for fuller consideration, 
but I feel that if I do not write now the whole subject will escape 
my mind under the pressure of duties connected with the closing of 
the college year. 

1. While the influence of immigration has been in many respects 
helpful, I am confident that the general effect has been to bring labor 
to a lower level and to modify unfavorably the American ideals of 
character and life. 

2. I hesitate to say that immigration has reached a point where it 
constitutes a menace to the American laborer. I can not regard the 
interests of the American laborer as something separate from the 
interests of the community at large, nor as something to be protected 
for its own sake. To accept such a principle would lead to class 
legislation to an extent that would be in itself a menace to the gen¬ 
eral welfare. I do feel, however, that the time has come for us to 
place some restriction upon immigration, although I have not reached 
any definite conclusion as to the form which this restriction should 
take. 


3. There is but one answer to your inquiry concerning the desira¬ 
bility of fostering an intelligent plan of distribution. If it is possible 
to formulate and carry out such a plan, the problem of immigration 
will be brought much nearer to a solution than it is to-day or can be 
so long as foreign populations are crowded into our large cities. 

The State of New York does not need more citizens, but a better 
type of citizens. There are people enough in the State to develop 
all of its resources, both agricultural and industrial. 

Yours, very truly, 


(Signed) 


Andrew V. Raymond. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


197 


[Copy.] 

No. 66.] Syracuse Chamber of Commerce, 

Syracuse , N. Y., May 20, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Your favor of May 16, addressed to the president of 
the Syracuse Chamber of Commerce, has been referred by him to me 
for answer. In reply thereto I would say in answer to questions: 

1. That with the increase in the demand for unskilled labor in 
this State owing to construction and other operations, it would have 
been practically impossible for the State to have made the strides 
that it has made without the supply of labor resulting from immi¬ 
gration. 

2. To-day in this city and practically in this State the job is seeking 
the man, the man is not seeking the job, so that it is hard to figure 
in what way immigration can be a menace to labor. 

In spite of these facts I believe that immigration should be restricted 
along lines which would insure to America a class of citizens not neces¬ 
sarily educated, but at least of sound bodies and of sound minds. 

3. I do think that the fostering of an intelligent plan of distribu¬ 
tion by the federal authorities in connection with those of the State 
would be of value in preventing congestion in the cities. Unquestion¬ 
ably immigration is needed for agricultural as well as industrial labor. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) Harlow C. Clark, 

Secretary. 


[Copy.] 

No. 67.] Mayor's Office, 

Troy, N. Y., May 31, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir: Acknowledging receipt of your letter dated May 23, 
1907, I reply to your inquiries as follows: 

1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in recent 

years been beneficial or otherwise? * 

I believe it to be beneficial in many ways. 

2. In your opinion, has the tide of immigration reached a point 
where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer ? 

The American laborer was never in my recollection so well paid 
and so fully employed as at present; hence I can not see that his 
interests are menaqed. 

3. Do you or do you not think that the fostering of an intelligent 
plan of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with 
those of the various States would, by relieving the congestion in our 
larger cities, tend to solve the problem of alleged excessive immi¬ 
gration ? 

An intelligent plan of distributing immigration is as essential as the 
plans for the reclamation and irrigation of arid lands. After one is 
accomplished there is need for the other. Immigration will be 
regulated by the profitableness of the occupation afforded. When 



198 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


the immense movement now in force subsides, the immigrant will 
gravitate to agricultural pursuits. Our acreage is large, our pros¬ 
perity in its infancy, our resources unbounded, and so long as the 
character of the immigrant is reputable, his object in coming to 
improve his condition, and his mode of life and habits are not radi¬ 
cally at variance with our standards, he should be welcomed. 

Yours, respectfully, 

(Signed) Elias P. Mann, 

Mayor. 


No. 68.] 


[Copy.] 


Governor’s Office, 
North Dakota, May 17, 1907. 


Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, 

New York City. 


My Dear Sir: Yours of recent date duly received, and in reply 
thereto give the following answers to your questions: 

First. The general influence of immigration to this State in recent 
years has been beneficial. Of course a large part of the immigration 
has come to this State from other States in the Union, and were 
already American citizens before coming here. Quite a few, how¬ 
ever, have come direct from Norway, Sweden, Russia, and Germany. 
They are all a good class of immigrants, and make good citizens. 

Second. In my opinion immigration has not interfered with Amer¬ 
ican laborers in this State. In fact, we had great difficulty in secur¬ 
ing laborers to put in the crop this year. I.sent the commissioner of 
immigration to St. Paul and Minneapolis to secure laborers for the 
farms in this State, and they were secured with great difficulty. In 
many places in this State at least 25 per cent of the teams were idle 
for some one to drive them. Because of the scarcity of labor and 
the lateness of the spring, it is estimated that there will be 30 per 
cent less wheat sown than last year. 

Third. I believe that it would be a great blessing if Congress would 
appropriate a large sum of money at each session to enable the poor 
people who are living in the congested cities from hand to mouth to 
get out into States like North Dakota, where they could get a home 
of their own and soon acquire a competence. Such action would in 
a large measure solve the problem of so-called excessive immigration. 
Immigration is needed in our State for the development of our agri¬ 
cultural and industrial resources. This State is destined to be one 
of the great States of this Union. It is practically all agricultural 
land, excepting a strip in the western part of the State known as the 
“Bad Lands,” and it is splendid grazing country. The whole middle 
and western part of the State is underlaid with lignite coal. The 
western part has the very best of clays for the manufacture of the 
finest kinds of potteries and bricks, and yet there are places in this 
State where a man can go and get 160 acres of land, by paying the 
filing fee, and making his home on it for the time required by law. 

I inclose you herewith a map, from which you can get some statis¬ 
tics relative to agricultural and other resources of this State. 

Yours, very truly, 


(Signed) 


John Burke. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


199 


[Copy.] 


No. 69.] State of Ohio, Executive Department, 

__ Columbus, May 16, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, 

New York. 


My Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of May 14 , the governor 
directs me to state that the general influence of immigration in Ohio 
in recent years has been beneficial because of the unusual demand for 
labor, which is in some places still not fully supplied. 

The tide of immigration has not reached a point where it consti¬ 
tutes a menace to the interests of American labor in this State so long 
as existing conditions remain. In some quarters the prosperity 
which gives the unusual demand for labor could hardly be considered 
normal. If the present prosperity should not continue, then the 
question of restriction might be more necessary here, as it evidently 
is now in your city and in some of the other large cities. 

The governor approves of your plan of fostering an intelligent dis¬ 
tribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with the States 
for the relief of the larger cities. 

The demand for labor is not for the development of the agricultural 
interests or of the established industries at this time, but mostly for 
extraordinary improvements. The railroads are doubling the tracks 
here as they have done formerly in the East, and the State has just 
entered upon the rejuvenation of its canals. These are the two 
quarters from which the great demand for labor comes. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) S. J. Flickinger, Secretary. 


[Copy.] 

No. 70.] Cleveland, Ohio, June 6, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of the 23d, in which you ask my 
opinion on immigration— 

I would say that my attitude is to allow every person coming into 
our country the fullest liberty. I would neither subsidize or restrict 
immigration except to protect ourselves from an influx of peculiarly 
undesirable people who would not become interested in our institu¬ 
tions. 

My reason for this stand is that I have no knowledge of any country 
where population by natural increase or immigration has ever ex¬ 
ceeded the means of subsistence. On the other hand, I am convinced 
that the dangers you anticipate from immigration are but the result 
of monopoly fostered by our laws. 

With this in mind, my efforts are directed against monopoly, to the 
end that natural opportunities may be equal. To accomplish this, it 
is absolutely necessary that we abolish a system of taxation that by 
levying on labor products imposes a penalty on industry and thrift. 
In place of it I would establish a system where men would contribute 
to the expenses of government proportionate to benefits received. 



200 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


You of course realize that expenditures of public money in a commu¬ 
nity enhance land values only. 

Sincerely, yours, 

(Signed) Tom L. Johnson. 


[Copy.] 

No. 71.] The Hocking Valley Railway Co., 

Columbus, Ohio, June 5, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir : Your circular letter in the interest of the National Board 
of Trade in connection with the question of immigration, addressed 
to the president of this company, has been referred to me, and in 
reply would say, speaking of course from the railway standpoint: 

1. Immigration to this State in recent years has been beneficial, 
for without the Italian and Greek laborers it would be difficult to 
secure a sufficient supply of men for railroad track work. 

2. In my opinion, so far as our lines of railway and the State of 
Ohio are concerned, immigration of laborers has not yet reached a 
point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborers. 

3. An intelligent plan of distribution by the federal authorities 
would, no doubt, aid in relieving the congestion in the larger cities, 
and scatter immigrants more generally over the country where they 
could engage in agricultural as well as industrial pursuits. 

It is my observation that agricultural laborers are always in demand 
throughout the central and northern parts of this State to supply 
the places of the children of farmers who move to the cities and towns 
and secure employment there. 

Yours, truly, 

(Signed) F. B. Sheldon, 

Assistant to President . 

P. S. Please accept this letter as replying also to your letter of 
May 22, addressed to Decatur Axtell, esq., chairman of Board of 
Directors, Ohio Central Lines, Richmond, Va., which was recently 
referred to me. 


[Copy.] 

No. 72.] The Dayton Chamber of Commerce, 

Dayton, Ohio, May 27, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of May 16, containing inquiries 
regarding the “immigration question,” I am frank to say that I am 
unable to give you much information, or to offer suggestions that 
would be of very great value. 

There has been but little immigration to this part of Ohio in the 
past twenty years, our labor is to a large extent native and the advan¬ 
tages and disadvantages of immigration demanded no consideration 
from our manufacturing and business interests. 

I believe, however, that on the whole the influence of immigration 
on this State has been beneficial, as our farming class has been built 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


201 


up from that source and common labor is always in demand. It has 
not reached a point in this district where it has become, or is likely to 
become, a menace to the interests of American labor, and on the other 
hand it is not required in Ohio for the purposes of industrial or agri¬ 
cultural development. 

The question is a broad one, and as Dayton is not one of the con¬ 
gested labor points, its citizens would be poor judges, and our opinions 
would be of little value. 

Thanking you for your courtesy, 

I am, respectfully, 

(Signed) Theo. Fluhart, 
President Dayton Chamber oj Commerce . 


[Copy.] 

No. 73.] Executive Offices, 

City of Toledo , June 3, 1907. 

John J. D. Trenor, Esq., 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: I fear that I can not throw very great light upon the 
subject of immigration, for my study of the question has not been 
very deep or extensive. In answer to your questions, however, it 
seems to me that the general influence of immigration to the State 
of Ohio in recent years has been beneficial. Here in our city we have 
a number of communities that are composed almost entirely of 
foreign population, and I think the people living there are making 
good citizens; indeed, I have found that among our foreign popula¬ 
tion, the real American ideals of equality and liberty are as well 
understood as they are by those classes who have lived several 
generations in this country; they seem to have a more simple and 
naive conception of what America really is than many of those who 
pride themselves on a long lineage on this side of the water. Of 
course, I know that this idea of equality is complained of by many 
people, still I believe it is what America stands for. 

In the second place, in my opinion, the tide of immigration has 
not reached the point where it constitutes a serious menace to 
American labor. 

As to your third question; I think that the fostering of an intelli¬ 
gent plan of distribution by the federal authorities, in conjunction 
with those of the various States, would possibly, by relieving the 
congestion in our larger cities, tend to solve the problem of our 
alleged excessive immigration; but I do not know what an intelligent 
plan would be, and I am not sure that there has been excessive 
immigration. I think it is unfair to ascribe all the evils we suffer 
to immigrants. I can see just as many evils arising from the conduct 
and lives and ideals of those families that have lived in this country 
for generations, and I say this as one whose ancestors have lived in 
America since the middle of the 17th Century. I believe in funda¬ 
mental democracy; I think that America was meant for all men, 
and I do not want to shut anybody out; I believe that in time all the 
problems that annoy us will be solved, and that this democracy will 
justify itself. 

Yours, very sincerely, 

(Signed) Brand Whitlock. 



202 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


[Copy.] 

No. 74.] State of Oregon, Executive Department, 

Salem, May 23, 1907. 

John J. D. Trenor, Esq., 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your favor of the 14th instant. In 
reply, permit me to answer your questions in the order in which they 
are stated in your letter. 

First. The general influence of immigration to this State in recent 
years has been beneficial. 

Second. The tide of immigration here has not reached a point 
where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer. 

Third. There is only one solution of the problem of excessive 
immigration and congestion in the larger cities, and that is rigid 
enforcement of present immigration laws and the adoption of others 
that would be still more stringent as to terms. I can not understand 
why the United States should permit such excessive immigration 
and then undertake to solve such questions as congestion in larger 
cities and the proper distribution of immigrants. 

Fourth. We are not particularly in need of immigration to this 
State, further than a splendid class of emigrants who are coming here 
from the Middle West. 

I have the honor to remain, 

Yours, very respectfully, 

(Signed) Geo. E. Chamberlain. 


[Copy.] 

No. 75.] The Harrisburg Board of Trade, 

Harrisburg, Pa., May 18, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your esteemed favor of May 16, relative 
to immigration, would say that I find this matter depends largely 
upon locality and conditions. In my answers I can only speak for 
my immediate vicinity and do not wish to be put on record for State. 

No. 1. The influence of immigration has been beneficial to us, as 
we could not possibly man our large iron and steel industries without 
the foreign labor. 

No. 2. Not with us, as we are advertising for 1,000 American 
laborers for our mills. 

No. 3. We would favor an intelligent plan of distribution, accord¬ 
ing to demands of localities. 

Immigration in our section is required for our industrial benefit, 
and, in a few cases, for our agricultural, as we have here in Dauphin 
County small farms in our mountains, purchased by Germans and 
developed to a high state of cultivation and production, the products, 
of a fine character, coming into our local markets. 

Trusting I have fully answered your inquiry, and again calling your 
attention to the fact that I am speaking only for my immediate 
locality, I am, 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) James A. Bell, 

Manager. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


203 


[Copy.] 

No. 76.] The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 

Philadelphia, Pa., May 2 4, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir : Replying to yours of 22d instant, this company does not 
keep such data as would enable me to officially reply to your queries, 
and I can, therefore, only express a personal opinion, which I do as 
follows: 

Question 1. I would say the general influence of immigration upon 
our State in recent years has been on the whole beneficial. 

Question 2. I can not see that the tide of immigration has reached a 
point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer. I think the American laborer—and by this I presume is 
meant the native-born American—is a rare commodity. If all for¬ 
eign labor was debarred, wages of American labor would, of 4 course, 
rise, but concurrently all work of any magnitude throughout the 
country would come to a standstill, as there would be none to carry it 
out. 1 believe we have laws sufficient at present, if they were sys¬ 
tematically and vigorously enforced, to cover the only method of 
restriction I would raise, namely, good health, character, and the 
ability to fairly read some language. Bearing in mind the radical 
difference in the educational opportunities of this country compared 
with Europe and other countries, we must be reasonable in our 
educational requirements. 

Question 3. I believe that the fostering of an intelligent plan of 
distribution by the federal authorities, in conjunction with those of 
the various States, might tend to solve the problem of alleged exces¬ 
sive immigration, and might temporarily relieve the congestion in the 
larger cities, but such a plan would make the Government and States 
largely responsible for the success or failure of the immigrant; would 
also make it necessary that advice be given to the immigrant before 
starting for this country as to where he would be located; would also 
require the federal and state authorities to provide safeguards whereby 
proper accommodations and treatment would be accorded to the 
immigrant in the place where he was located by government order; 
and, finally, I question, if such location was intelligently made, 
whether the larger bodies of immigrants would not move to the 
large cities upon the first opportunity. 

Immigration is needed in the State of Pennsylvania primarily for 
the development of industrial resources, but if immigrants could be 
induced to undertake agricultural development, there is a big field 
for them here, although in the line of agriculture greater success 
might attend their efforts in some of the Southern or Western States. 

It would have been impossible to have carried on the commercial 
and industrial developments of this country during the past seven 
or ten years if the supply of foreign labor had been materially re¬ 
stricted. An examination of all new railroad work, municipal works, 
cleaning of city streets, etc., will show that the actual labor is being 
performed by foreigners, and that recently on many western and 
southern railroads this character of work has been materially delayed 


204 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


owing to the scarcity of labor, and this notwithstanding the enormous 
influx of foreigners. 

I trust that these personal comments of mine may be of some service 
to you. 

Yours, truly, 

(Signed) Saml. Rea, 

Third Vice-President. 


[Copy.] 

No. 77.] P. H. Hamburger Company, 

Pittsburg, Pa., June J, 1907. 

Mr. H. D. W. English, 

President Chamber of Commerce, Pittsburg, Pa. 

Dear Sir : I take pleasure in answering the questions asked in Mr. 
John J. D. TrenoPs letter to the Hon. George W. Guthrie, and which 
you referred to me. 

I heartily agree with the conclusions reached by the very intelligent 
committee on resolutions of the National Civic Federation at its 
immigration conference, which report was adopted unanimously, and 
many of the suggestions contained in that report have been favorably 
received by the United States Congress, and some of the ideas therein 
advocated have been added to the statutory laws in reference to 
immigration, and the resume of these resolutions meant that it was 
more a question of the intelligent distribution of the immigrants 
rather than an immigrant problem itself. The Southwest, and West 
itself, are clamoring for immigrants, and the State of South Carolina 
has aided immigrants to reach its shores. If the steamship companies 
would land immigrants at Galveston, New Orleans, Savannah, and 
Charleston, for instance, and on the Pacific slope, there is no question 
of their being taken care of; but the great tendency has been to land 
the vast bulk of them in New York, and some in Boston, Philadelphia, 
and Baltimore, with the result that the congestion, especially in New 
York City, has been tremendous. 

With the great amount of undeveloped land in the United States 
and the thinly populated areas, it has been figured that our country 
can support a far vaster population than it has at present, and it has 
been estimated that every adult represents a monetary value of from 
$500 to $1,000, that it has cost that much to raise that adult, and 
that the labor performed by him is an asset of the State, so much so 
that certain European countries have tried to restrict emigration. 
Of course, the tendency has been for immigrants to go to those places 
where their friends are, and it is therefore quite a problem to work 
out the intelligent distribution. For instance, it would be foolish 
to send an iron worker to a farm or region where there is no iron, a 
tailor to picking cotton, and there are many problems that enter into 
this phase of the question. 

As far as the State of Pennsylvania is concerned, the immigrant 
has been needed for its development in our industries, in our mines, 
mills, and factories, and our household help comes largely from this 
source. 

In answer to the question: “Has the general influence of immigra¬ 
tion to Pennsylvania in recent years been beneficial or otherwise /* 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


205 


I would say that materially it has been decidedly beneficial, and as 
a rule the immigrant has been found to be a law-abiding citizen, and 
that in a great number of cases reported in the papers where foreigners 
have been guilty of infraction of borough laws, that an investigation 
proves that these have been minor offences, petty infractions of police 
regulations, and, in spite of the reports of the average news gatherer, 
an investigation of the penal institutions of our country reveals that 
the great bulk of criminals are not of foreign birth, but are native 
born and can at least read and write, and would generally be spoken 
of as intelligent citizens. 

In answer to the question: “In your opinion has the tide of immi¬ 
gration reached a point where it constitutes a menace to the interests 
of the American laborer ? If so, what method of restriction would you 
suggest V 7 I would say that the best answer to that is the extraor¬ 
dinary high wages received by laborers and the crying demand for 
men to work in almost every industry. I am not in favor of restric¬ 
tion, so-called, and I do not favor an educational test. The only 
restriction I am in favor of is to keep out the beggar, the criminal, the 
weak-minded, the insane, those suffering from loathsome or incurable 
diseases, and those adults incapable of earning their own sustenance. 
I am not in favor of keeping those out of firm mind and physically 
strong, who have committed no political crimes, because England and 
America have always posed as the asylum for the oppressed of all 
mankind, and, in the words of Emerson, “America stands for oppor¬ 
tunity / 7 and that opportunity should be every man’s. My investi¬ 
gation of this subject convinces me that there are more criminals 
coming to our country in the first cabin than in the steerage. 

We have inherited the priceless boon of freedom and the blessings 
of a free country, and its privileges should be passed along to our 
fellow-men uncurtailed and unimpaired. 

I would refer Mr. Trenor to the annual report of the Commissioner- 
General of Immigration, which gives the statistics so fully and the 
arrival and distribution of immigrants in the United States, for if I 
were to start to give the statistics I am afraid I would make this 
answer much too long. 

Trusting that my views may be of some service, I am, 

Yours, respectfully, 

(Signed) Albert M. Hauauer. 


No. 78.] STATE OF RHODE ISLAND. 

In answer to my letter of May 14, 1907, the Hon. James H. Higgins, 
governor of the State of Rhode Island, replied as follows: 

Question 1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in recent years 
been beneficial or otherwise? 

Answer. Has not affected our State materially one way or the other as yet. 

Question 2. In your opinion has the tide of immigration reached a point where it 
constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer? 

Answer. Not yet. . 

Question 3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an intelligent plan 
of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with those of the various 
States would, by relieving the congestion in the larger cities, tend to solve the problem 
of alleged excessive immigration? 

Answer. I think it would, at least at present. 



206 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


No. 79.] 


EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CHARLESTON, S. C. 

In answer to my letter of May 23, 1907, the Hon. R. G. Rhett, 
mayor of the city of Charleston, replied as follows: 

Question 1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in recent years 
been beneficial or otherwise? 

Answer. Beneficial. 

Question 2. In your opinion has the tide of immigration reached a point where it 
constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer? 

Answer. No. 

Question 3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an intelligent plan of 
distribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with those of the various States 
would, by relieving the congestion in our larger cities, tend to solve the problem 
of alleged excessive immigration? 

Answer. Am inclined to think so. 

Question 4. If in your opinion immirgation is needed in your State, is it required 
for the development of your agricultural as well as your industrial resources? 

Answer. Yes. 

[Copy.] 

No. 80.] Department of Agriculture, 

Commerce, and Immigration, 

State of South Carolina, 
Columbia, S. C., May 25, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, 

New York City. 

Dear Sir: Your letters of May 14, the one addressed to the gov¬ 
ernor of the State of South Carolina and the other to the Chamber of 
Commerce of this city, have both been referred to this office for 
answer. As you are doubtless aware, this department has been the 
pioneer in practical work for the proper selection and distribution of 
American immigration, and I only wish that I had the time to answer 
at more length most of the questions propounded by you. You will 
perhaps recall that we met personally some years prior to my taking 
the active part that I have in the last few years in immigration 
matters. 

Answering concisely the questions propounded by you: 

1. Exceedingly beneficial. 

2. No; the interests of the American laborer are not yet menaced, 
nor are they likely to be soon, but the horde of people of undesirable 
nationalities now pouring into this country is creating sociological and 
other problems, and in certain congested centers produce exceedingly 
undesirable conditions. I believe there should be provisions in the 
United States laws looking to the selection of people at their own 
homes by representatives of the several States, acquainted with the 
labor necessities of those States, such representatives working in close 
cooperation with United States department and consular officials, if 
necessary, under an international agreement. 

3. There is no possible plan, intelligent or unintelligent, that will 
bring about the distribution at the great ports of entry where the con¬ 
gestion of population is greatest, for the reason that these people are 
like so many sheep, desiring to herd together and remain in one place, 
and for the still further reason that the prevailing scale of wages that 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


207 


they hear of at these centers are higher than in the sparsely settled 
sections. These people can not understand that the lower scale of 
wages prevailing in the latter, taken in conjunction with the lower 
cost of living, means more to them at the end of the year than were it 
possible for them to find employment at the higher scale. I have per¬ 
sonally tried the matter of diverting the immigrant newly arrived and 
long arrived from the great cities into the agricultural districts, and 
I do not hesitate to say that it is just as impossible a proposition as 
an attempt to go to Europe with an air ship. The diversion and the 
distribution must be made from the sources of supply abroad, and if 
our present condition in the great centers of population is to be bet¬ 
tered, greater restriction must be placed on the incoming of so many 
people of the lower order of intelligence—the people that are com¬ 
monly called “undesirables.” 

Immigration is needed in this State primarily for the development 
of thousands and thousands of acres of valuable lands. At this time 
we do not need, nor are we seeking, the skilled tradesman, but with 
the increase of population, the building up of the agricultural and 
manufacturing industries, the need for the skilled tradesman will 
be created, and he will find work in sections where it does not exist 
to-day. 

Trusting that the above has answered fully the questions pro¬ 
pounded, believe me, 

Very truly, yours, (Signed) E. J. Watson, 

Commissioner. 


[Copy.] 

No. 81.] State of South Dakota, 

Executive Department, 

May 24, 1907 . 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building , New Yorlc, N. Y. 

Sir: Yours of recent date addressed to me as governor of South 
Dakota, received. The queries propounded by you are answered as 
follows: 

1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in 
recent years been beneficial or otherwise ? 

Answer. It has been beneficial. 

2. In your opinion, has the tide of immigration reached a point 
where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer? If so, what method of restriction would you suggest? 

Answer. In my judgment, the tide of immigration to this country 
has not yet reached a point where it constitutes a menace to the 
interests of the American laborer. For instance, in the State of 
South Dakota, we have not laboring men enough to meet the demand. 
Both contractors and farmers experience very great difficulty in 
securing the services of a sufficient number of laboring men. The 
difficulty extends to both skilled and unskilled labor and to union 
as well as nonunion labor. Legislation on this subject should, of 
course, so far as possible, exclude “undesirables,” but it should not 
restrict immigration of honest, law-abiding laboring men, no matter 
from what country they come. 



208 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an intelli¬ 
gent plan of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunction 
with those of the various States would, by relieving the congestion 
in our larger cities, tend to solve the problem of alleged excessive 
immigration ? 

Answer. I do. 

4. If, in your opinion, immigration is needed in your State, is it 
required for the development of your agricultural as well as your 
industrial resources ? 

Answer. It is. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

(Signed) Coe L Crawford, 

Governor. 


NO. 82.] EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, NASHVILLE, TENN. 

> 

In answer to my letter of May 23, 1907, the Hon. T. O. Morris 
mayor of the city of Nashville, Tenn., replied as follows: 

Question 1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in recent years 
been beneficial or otherwise? 

Answer. Not enough to see if influenced in either direction. 

Question 2., In your opinion, has the tide of immigration reached a point where it 
constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer? 

Answer. Not in this State. 

Question 3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an intelligent plan 
of distribution by the federal authorities, in conjunction with those of the various 
States, would, by relieving the congestion in our larger cities, tend to solve the problem 
of alleged excessive immigration? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 4. If in your opinion immigration is needed in your State, is it required 
for the development of your agricultural as well as your industrial resources? 

Answer. Not required at all here. 


[Copy.] 

No. 83.] Department of Agriculture, Insurance, 

Statistics, and History, State of Texas, 

Austin , May 28, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

New York. 

Dear Sir: Your letter with reference to immigration addressed 
to the governor was referred to me. 

The general influence of immigration to our State has been very 
beneficial. We are greatly in need of more labor in all the depart¬ 
ments of business in Texas, the demand being far in excess of our 
supply. Therefore the tide has not reached a point where immigra¬ 
tion could be considered a menace to the interests of the American 
laborer. I think it would be wise for the federal authorities to dis¬ 
tribute immigration throughout the country, and thus relieve the 
congestion in the cities. But we want a better class of immigration 
than is now flocking to this country from Russia, Hungary, and Italy. 
All of our resources in Texas need labor. We could easily find room 
here for forty or fifty millions. 

Yours, truly, (Signed) R. F. Milner. 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


209 


No. 84.] 


[Copy.] 


The Houston and Texas Central Railroad Co., 

Houston, Tex., May 25, 1907. 


immigration. 


Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 20, addressed to President Lovett, 
has been referred to me. Answering categorically the questions asked 
by you, I beg to advise as follows: 

First. The influence of immigration to the State of Texas has been 
beneficial. 

Second. The tide of immigration has not reached a point where it 
constitutes a menace to American labor. The restrictions which 
should be imposed on immigration ought to exclude, of course, pau¬ 
pers, immigrants of well-known vicious character, anarchists, and 
other such classes who would prove undesirable citizens. 

Third. Any plan which would distribute the immigrants through¬ 
out the agricultural sections of the country should be fostered, not 
only by the national, but by the state governments. If possible to 
prevent it, immigrants should be kept away from the crowded cities, 
and should be distributed through agricultural communities, which, 
without exception, are always short of labor. This plan would not 
only be a direct benefit to the development of the resources of the 
United States, but would be of material benefit to the immigrants 
themselves, as well as a benefit to their children, to have the latter 
brought up in rural communities, away from the vices and tempta¬ 
tions of large cities. 



(Signed) 


[Copy.] 


No. 85.] San Antonio and Aransas Pass Railway Co., 

San Antonio, Tex., May 31, 1907. 

Mr. W. M. Hobbs, 

First Vice-President and General Manager. 

Dear Sir: Returning attached letter from Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 
of New York, I beg to recommend the following: 

In reply to his question No. 1: 

The general influence of immigration to the State of Texas in 
recent years has been decidedly beneficial. 

In reply to question No. 2: 

Immigration in Texas has not been a menace to the interest of 
our laborers. I answer so far as Texas is concerned. I am not in a 
position to pass a creditable opinion as to the condition in other 
parts of the United States, but so far as I can learn from the news¬ 
paper reports I am inclined to think that unless certain protections 

49090—10-14 



210 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


are thrown around immigrants coming to this country the United 
States will be compelled to deal with very grave and serious questions. 

We have too many people coming to this country who, after they 
remain a short time and accumulate a little money, endeavor to 
make the conditions here the same as they left in the “old country.” 
In plain words, they have not become Americanized. 

No American citizen can vote or exercise the right of citizenship 
under the age of 21 years, and I believe that no alien should be 
allowed to vote without having remained in the United States for a 
period of not less than five years. 

In answer to question No. 3: 

I believe that it would be a wise plan to have the federal authorities 
undertake to relieve the congestion in the larger cities. We are not 
so much interested in immigration from foreign countries to settle 
up our State as we are in getting the better class of people from the 
more thickly populated Northern and Western States. 

Yours, truly, 

(Signed) * Geo. F. Lupton, 

General Passenger Agent. 


[Copy.] 

No. 86.] Commonwealth of Utah, Executive Chamber, . 

Salt Lake , May 23, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York. 

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your favor of May 14, in which you 
ask certain questions regarding the matter of immigration to Utah. 
I will take up your questions seriatim, and give you brief answers 
which I hope will cover the necessary ground. 

1. The general influence of immigration to this State has always 
been beneficial. Most of the immigrants are from the northern and 
central nations of Europe, and from different parts of the United 
States. They quickly become assimilated with our citizenship, and 
their thrift and industry add greatly to the wealth and prestige of 
the State. Of late years, however, a larger proportion of less desir¬ 
able citizens have been received, chiefly Greeks, Austrians, Italians, 
Japanese, etc. 

2. The classes just named constitute the greatest present menace 
to American labor. They are employed chiefly by large corpora¬ 
tions; and it is a noticeable fact that many of them are inclined to 
be turbulent and un-American. In addition to this, they send fully 
75 per cent of their earnings out of the country, retaining merely 
enough to support them in a more or less squalid style of living. As 
to the desirability of restricting this class of immigrants, and the best 
way of accomplishing it if desirable, I would say merely this: The 
Federal Government might apply general test of desirability of immi¬ 
grants, basing it not on one, but several grounds. It could be guided 
by the general experience had with these various classes of immigrants 
in the past, as reported from the various States. I believe Utah 
would stand by the Government in applying such a test, for our State 
has always been proud of the general standard of its immigration. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


211 

3. I believe that one of the greatest dangers of immigration is 
the crowding of the illiterate and the poor classes of immigrants 
in the large cities. I should be heartily in favor of any practical 
plan that could be devised by the Government and the States in 
conjunction, to distribute the immigrants in localities well removed 
from the large cities. Speaking for Utah, I can say with emphasis 
that we need good immigrants; but we should greatly prefer genuine 
homeseekers, whose intention it is to become permanent residents, 
with homes and farms of their own, and their interests identical 
with ours. We need them for the development of our agricultural 
resources, as there are many thousands of acres of land now being 
brought under cultivation by arid farming, which will provide homes 
for many times the present population of the State. Our industrial 
resources are also enlarging to a marked degree, and the assistance 
of intelligent, industrious immigrants is needed in their f urther devel¬ 
opment. 

Trusting that the dat^here given will serve your purpose, I 
remain, 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) John C. Cutler, 

Governor of Utah. 


[Copy.] 

No. 87.] Sex\board Air Line Railway, 

Norfolk, Va., June 9, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 22, addressed to our former presi¬ 
dent, Mr. Alfred Walter, deceased, has been referred to me for answer. 

You appreciate that the questions put by you cover a very broad 
scope, and, of course, we can only answer them from the conditions 
in the territory that we serve, appreciating that there are similar 
conditions in other fields; that is, the North, as well as the West. I 
might say, however, that our industrial institutions, possibly with 
a few exceptions, are not hampered by labor unions. This we feel 
is accounted for by the absence of foreign element. In answering 
the questions put I quote them, and follow with the answer: 

1. Question. Has the general influence of immigration to your 
State in recent years been beneficial or otherwise ? 

Answer. Immigration to the Southern States has not been general. 
There have been some aliens among those who have settled, but the 
movement has consisted principally of Americanized foreigners with 
a sprinkling of natives from Northern and Western States. The 
general influence has been extremely beneficial, but would have been 
more so had the numbers been augmented by laborers rather than to 
have been confined to landholding farmers. 

2. Question. In your opinion has the tide of immigration reached 
a point where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American 
labor ? If so, what method of restriction would you suggest ? 

Answer. From our standpoint, there has been no menace and we 
are able to assimilate many more skilled and unskilled laborers with¬ 
out detriment to the American laborer. 



212 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


3. Question. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an 
intelligent plan of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunc¬ 
tion with those of the various States would, by relieving the congestion 
in our larger cities, tend to solve the problem of alleged excessive 
immigration ? ... . . 

( b ) If in your opinion immigration is needed in your State, is it 
required for the development of your agricultural as well as your 
industrial resources ? 

Answer. This is a far-reaching question, and apparently would be 
in conflict with our laws with respect to free citizenship. If, how¬ 
ever, a feasible plan could be devised whereby the Government w T ould 
aid the separate States through the medium of advice based upon 
actual knowledge of the conditions, then a distribution could be effected, 
but hardly to the extent of solving alleged excessive immigration. 
Our experience is that immigrants follow channels through which 
originally directed. Until recently the South made no bid for for¬ 
eigners, while the North sought the laborer and the West the farmer. 
By reason of settlements from these causes the numbers have 
increased, kindred ties and nationalities being strong agencies in the 
influencing of people to various localities. The congestion in the 
larger cities is due largely, though not wholly, to these causes as 
well. It is quite true that the land values of the West have increased 
to an extent that will hardly justify, or rather permit, the immigrant 
of to-day being a landowner. The great tide which is now flowing 
over the borders into Canada opens a new phase of the question and 
at the same time will leave considerable room and opportunities, 
though at larger figures than the early settlers were able to purchase 
at. In fact, I think that you will agree with me that this feature— 
increased land values throughout the West—is largely responsible for 
the exodus of people from the Western States into Alberta, Mani¬ 
toba, and Saskatchewan. It is a new country, full of promise and 
with farms for the asking. Immigration has been kept out of the 
South by the institution of slavery; its people did not care for it; 
lack of knowledge of the true conditions. There is room for the 
negro and work for the white man in lines of industrial and agricul¬ 
tural pursuits that will not necessarily place them in competition. 
The people now want immigration; the true facts in connection with 
the South are becoming known; to-day we are able to offer a new 
country having all the advantages of an old one. 

We do not believe that it will ever be possible to start the flow of 
immigration southward except upon the plan of assembling similar 
people in one spot, instructing and aiding them until they acquire 
our customs and our language. When these colonies of desirable 
people shall have been scattered through the South, not only will a 
great deal of land be utilized agriculturally, but from the settlements 
will radiate sufficient labor for all our needs. 

(b) Answer. Immigrants are needed throughout the entire South 
and can be used advantageously in all industrial and agricultural 
pursuits. 

In studying this question it is impossible for a person to look at 
it from an entirely sectional standpoint. The North has been rad¬ 
ically changed and the West almost entirely built up by immigrants. 
Under such circumstances it can only be expected that their customs 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


213 


will largely predominate, and wherever they are found in large num¬ 
bers their influence must necessarily affect the natives. 

We are clamoring for desirable people of all classes. If we should 
receive them, no one can predict what, through their influence, the 
future will be. They may meet all of our requirements and be the 
benefit that we hope and expect them to be. At any rate, old tra¬ 
ditions have given way and the people of the South are ready to 
try the experiment by welcoming and fostering the alien if he will 
elect to reside with us. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) L. Sevier, ‘ 

Vice-President. 


[Copy.] 


No. 88.] Office of the Mayor, 

Richmond, Va., May 27, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. * 

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 23, concerning Italian immigration 
is to hand to-day. I have not the time nor the information necessary 
to make any extensive reply to your inquiries and must confine 
myself to a very brief statement of my personal convictions on the 
subject of your inquiries. 

So far as the State of Virginia is concerned, I think the only class 
of immigrants desirable here are people who have established at 
home a character for honesty, sobriety, industry, and intelligence. I 
am utterly opposed to the indiscriminate introduction of immigrants 
into this State and have no desire to push forward the material 
interests of the people by the sacrifice of the purity and character of 
our own people. I desire to see nothing but the best people intro¬ 
duced into this State. I would rather wait a hundred years for the 
prosperity so much desired than to purchase it by the sacrifice of our 
present peaceful, loyal, and virtuous conditions. 

Personally, I am not an advocate of forced immigration or a rapid 
increase in population to secure material advancement at the sacri¬ 
fice of things which, in my estimation, are priceless and which ought 
to be preserved by any amoun of continuous sacrifice. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) Carlton McCarthy. 


i 


[Copy.] 

No. 89.] Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, 

President’s Office, 
Richmond, Va., May 27, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir : I have your letter of the 20th instant, and beg to answer 
the questions contained therein as follows: 

1. In my opinion the general influence of immigration to Virginia 
in recent years has been beneficial. 




214 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


2. The tide of immigration has not yet reached a point in the South 
where it constitutes a menace to the interests of Americans. 

3. Immigration is principally needed in Virginia for the develop¬ 
ment of agricultural resources. 

I send you under separate cover a copy of the annual report for 
1906 of Mr. George W. Koiner, commissioner of agriculture for Virginia, 
and a pamphlet on the subject of farm labor in Virginia, which may 
interest you. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) Geo. W. Stevens. 


[Copy.] 

No. 90.] Norfolk and Western Kailway Company, 

Roanoke, Va., May 24, 1907. 

Mr. .John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City. 

Dear Sir: Your favor of May 22, and replying to your inter¬ 
rogatories seriatim: 

1. Has the general influence of immigration to your State in recent 
years been beneficial or otherwise ?—Answer. So far as the State of 
Virginia is concerned, I am of the opinion (and that opinion is based 
upon very considerable knowledge of the foreign element that has 
come into this State during the past ten years) that the general 
influence of immigration to this State in recent years has been bene¬ 
ficial, particularly so from a commercial standpoint. So far as the 
general citizenship is concerned, I do not believe that the State has 
as yet derived any benefit; and my views in connection with this 
matter are that the people of the State will largely influence the 
foreign element for good or bad. If the immigrant that comes to 
this country is properly treated and given an opportunity to improve 
his condition financial!}^, morally, and socially, the State will derive 
great benefits from them as citizens. If, to the contrary, they do not 
give the immigrant an opportune to earn fair wages and treat them 
with due consideration, the result will be otherwise. 

2. In your opinion, has the tide of immigration reached a point 
where it constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer ? 
If so, what method of restriction would you suggest?—Answer. No; 
the tide of immigration has not reached a point where it constitutes 
a menace to the interests of the American laborer. I have been an 
employer of labor for more than thirty years, and during that time 
I have never known such a demand for labor with an inadequate 
supply as during the past two years; and should the present and 
recent past demand for products of this country continue, the 
demand for labor will far exceed the supply. 

3. Do you, or do you not, think that the fostering of an intelligent 
plan of distribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with 
those of the various States would, by relieving the congestion in our 
larger cities, tend to solve the problem of alleged excessive immigra¬ 
tion ? If, in your opinion, immigration is needed in your State, is it 
required for the development of your agricultural as well as your 
industrial resources?—Answer. In reply to the first paragraph: It 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


215 


is unquestionably true that the fostering of an intelligent plan of dis¬ 
tribution by the federal authorities in conjunction with those of the 
various States would, by relieving the congestion in our larger cities, 
tend to solve the problem of excessive immigration. I made an 
address before the Chamber of Commerce of Petersburg, Va., and 
take pleasure in sending you a copy of same (under separate cover), 
and invite your attention to my remarks concerning the question of 
immigration and negro labor. 

In reply to the second paragraph: Immigration is needed in our 
State particularly for the development of our agricultural resources. 
There is tributary to the Norfolk and Western Railway more than 
3,000,000 acres of tillable land untilled, for which are needed intelli¬ 
gent and comprehensive tillers of the soil. 

The lands of Virginia are adapted to a variety of crops. Certain 
sections, of course, are better adapted to certain classes of crops 
than others. We have what is known as the tobacco belt, peanut 
belt, corn and wheat belts, and the blue-grass regions; but in every 
one of these districts the soil is adapted to diversified farming in 
various directions, and it is very apparent that we need immigrants 
who are particularly qualified to take up the agricultural line of 
business in our State. It naturally follows that with large products 
from the soil there will'be a demand for labor in the industrial depart¬ 
ments. 

Yours, truly, (Signed) L. E. Johnson, 

President. 


[Copy.] 

No. 91.] State of Wisconsin, 

Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics, 

Madison, May 17, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: I have your favor of the 14th instant, addressed to 
Governor James O. Davidson, and in reply will say that, after reading 
questions you ask, I can answer them in a general way rather than 
in a specific way, which will probably be all that you require. 

As to the influence of immigration in our State, I will say that as 
far as immigration from the northern countries of Europe is concerned, 
I think Wisconsin has been in the main benefited thereby. But I 
am equally of the opinion that immigration from southern Europe 
has not been beneficial to this State or to labor. The immigrants 
from northern Europe have been in the main men and women whose 
standard of living has been on the level with the standard of living 
of the people in the State, while those from southern Europe have 
been much below and have consequently been a hindrance rather 
than a benefit to good citizenship in Wisconsin. 

It appears to me that an immigrant whose standard of living equals 
that of citizens of a State, he at once becomes a producer as well as 
a consumer and is not a menace to the interests of labor. But when 
an immigrant comes to this country whose standard of living is so 
low that he is not much of a producer and still less a consumer, then he 
is a menace to our labor and should not be allowed to immigrate to 
this country. 



216 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


As I said before, we have both lands in Wisconsin. Immigrants 
from northern Europe have been a benefit to us. Those from 
southern Europe have not, as a general thing. 

Very truly, yours, 

(Signed) J. D. Beck, 

Commissioner. 


[Copy.] 

No. 92.] Wisconsin Central Railway, 

Milwaukee, Wis., June 7, 1907. 

Mr. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Your letter dated the 22d ultimo to our president, Mr. 
W. A. Bradford, is referred to me for reply. 

To question No. 1, I would say that the influence of immigration 
has been very beneficial. 

To No. 2: The tide of immigration has not reached a point where it 
constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer in our 
State; in fact, good help is very scarce. 

To No. 3: I would be in favor of an intelligent plan of distribution 
by the federal authorities in conjunction with those of the various 
States, and I do think it would tend to solve the problem of alleged 
excessive immigration. Over one-half of the tillable lands in our 
State are still unoccupied. I believe that immigration is needed in 
Wisconsin, particularly for the development of agriculture, and that 
it would materially assist in industrial resources. 

I shall be pleased to give you any further information I can on the 
subject, and will appreciate having any matter that is published 
through you efforts.. 

Yours, very truly, 

(Signed) Wm. Id. Killen, 

Land and Industrial Commissioner. 


[Copy.] 

No. 93.] The State of Wyoming, 

Executive Department, 

Cheyenne , May 17, 1907. 

Hon. John J. D. Trenor, 

Produce Exchange Building, New York City, N. Y. 

Dear Sir: Replying to the question relative to immigration sub¬ 
mitted in your communication of May 14, will state: 

First. That the general influence of immigration in Wyoming has 
been very beneficial. 

Second. That there is no indication here that the tide of immigra¬ 
tion constitutes a menace to the interests of the American laborer. 

Third. That ah intelligent plan of distribution by the authorities, 
in conjunction with those of various States, would unquestionably 
prove very beneficial to all concerned. 

Immigration is certainly needed in Wyoming, and is required to 
develop both our agricultural and industrial resources. 

Yours, truly, 

(Signed) B. B. Brooks, 

Governor. 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILL. 


House of Representatives, 

Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

Washington , D. C., March 8, 1910. 

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. Benjamin F. 
Howell in the chair. 

Others present were Representatives Gardner, Bennet, Hayes, 
Kustermann, Edwards, Elvins, Moore (Texas), Sabath, and Goldfogle. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Hayes. I believe we have with us this morning some repre¬ 
sentatives of the Farmers’ Union, who desire to be heard. I think 
that is the special order for this morning. 

The Chairman. We shall be very glad to hear them. 

STATEMENT OF T. J. BROOKS, REPRESENTING THE FARMERS’ 
EDUCATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE UNION. 

Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the 
other gentlemen here with me are F. D. Wimberly, of Georgia; A. C. 
Shuford, North Carolina; R. L. Barnett, Kentucky; and H. S. 
Mobly, Arkansas. 

The gentleman whom we had expected to present our views, Mr. 
R. F. Duckworth, was called home by a telegram yesterday. There 
is sickness in his family, and it has been necessary for me to take his 
place. I have hastily gotten together my material with which to 
present our attitude. That being the case, if it is entirely satisfac¬ 
tory to the committee, I would ask that I be allowed to make a state¬ 
ment before I am asked any questions. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Brooks. But before I proceed if you want to know the extent 
of this organization and where it is located I will state that. 

Mr. Elvins. We shall be glad to hear it. 

Mr. Kustermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Brooks. I will give you the list of States and Territories where 
we have organizations complete. I will have to call them from 
memory, and I will go over them in rotation as well as I can recall, 
them: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, New Mexico, Nebraska, 
Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Illinois, 
Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South 
Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Louisiana. I am not sure 
whether I missed any. 

Mr. Elvins. What is the total membership, if you know ? 

Mr. Brooks. I could not state definitely- 


217 




218 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Elvins. Approximately. 

Mr. Brooks. But the national president states that we have ini¬ 
tiated 3,000,000 members. 

Mr. Kustermann. Are most of the members from the Southern 
States ? 

Mr. Brooks. Well, perhaps over half of the entire membership 
might be considered as coming from south of the center of the United 
States. I will now proceed. 

At a hearing before this committee on February 22 last Mr. Holder 
read several of our resolutions, as a result of which a member of this 
committee said, according to the printed hearings: 

Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Holder passes^on I would like to say that my attention 
was called to one of the resolutions stating that, “Whereas the present flagrant lax 
enforcement of existing immigration laws ’ is one of the causes ol this immigration 
that they protest against, I would like to ask Mr. Holder if it is possible for us to 
receive from this organization any definite details as to any flagrantly lax enforce¬ 
ment of the immigration laws. Let me ask you whether any member of the Farm¬ 
ers’ Union, or has the organization itself, any letters of protest or information that 
would give us specific facts showing where there has been any flagrant laxity in the 
enforcement of the existing laws? And that a statement like that, if it is not so; 
certainly vitiates the whole resolution. 

The matter was called to our attention by a message from Mr. 
Holder that the committee would hear us this morning. We quite 
agree with the opinion expressed, that if there was not reasonable 
ground for that part of our resolution the entire resolution would 
be more or less vitiated. Likewise we would respectfully submit 
that facts and expert opinions substantiating it vitalize the resolution. 

In the first place, it must be remembered that that particular reso¬ 
lution was adopted September 3, 1908, and was not, of course, dealing 
with the present administration of our immigration laws or their 
administration by the present Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
Hon. Charles Nagel. No such resolve is to be found in our resolu¬ 
tions adopted at Birmingham, Ala., last September, which I beg to 
read here for the purpose of showing that we felt laxness in enforce¬ 
ment had been remedied and for the further purpose of further 
showing the attitude of our organization toward the immigration 
problem: 

Whereas the United States Immigration Commission will report to the next session 
of Congress recommending legislation; and 

Whereas we are unalterably opposed to the present foreign influx from southeast 
Europe and western Asia, its proposed distribution and diversion to the South and 
West, and have in local, state, and national conventions resolved in favor of the 
enactment and vigorous enforcement of rigidly restrictive immigration laws: There¬ 
fore be it 

Resolved, That the Farmer’s Educational and Cooperative Union of America in 
fifth annual convention assembled at Birmingham, Ala., this 9th day of September, 
1909, representing more than 3,000,000 of farmers, reiterate and reaffirm the immigra¬ 
tion resulutions adopted unanimously at Memphis January 8 and at Fort Worth 
September 3, 1908, calling upon our state, and particularly our federal, officials to 
exclude the present foreign influx by means of an increased head tax, a money test, 
the illiteracy test, and other effective measures; and be it further 

Resolved , That the national legislative committee send copies of this and previous 
resolutions to the President for his annual message, to the Immigration Commission 
for its report, and to the Senate and House Immigration Committees for legislation, and 
to do all it possibly can to secure legislation along the lines of this and previous reso¬ 
lutions; and be it still further 

Resolved, That the national secretary send copies of this resolution and previous 
ones to the various state secretaries with the request that the matter be taken up by 
locals with their Senators and Congressmen with a view to congressional action. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


219 


These resolutions do not criticise the present enforcement of our 
immigration laws, but really commend their vigorous enforcement 
and the enactment of an increased head tax, the illiteracy test, a 
money test, and other effective restrictive measures. 

In regard to our reasons for believing that the immigration laws 
were not being enforced properly in 1908, we would submit an extract 
from an editorial published in a paper here in Washington, extracts 
from a brief left by New York state officials with President-elect 
Taft, some time before his inauguration, extracts from a statement 
given out to the press upon the appointment of Hon. William Williams 
as Mr. Watchorn’s successor at Ellis Island, and certain statements 
made by two members of this committee upon the floor of the House 
during the administration of Mr. Nagel’s predecessor. 

Here is an article which was reprinted in the Farmers’ Union News, 
of Union City, Ga., February 10, 1909, being copied from a monthly 
published here in Washington, called The Journal. I read only a 
few sentences from it. 

Mr. Sabath. What is the name of the paper ? 

Mr. Brooks. The Journal. 

Mr. Bennet. There is no such paper in Washington. 

Mr. Kustermann. That must be a mistake. 

Mr. Brooks. It was copied from a journal. This clipping was 
taken from the Union City News. This is not the original. 

Mr. Hayes. Perhaps the Wilmington Journal. 

Mr. Brooks. This [exhibiting copy] is the paper I got it out of— 
the Farmers’ Union News. 

Mr. Kustermann. You ought to give credit to the original paper. 

Mr. Brooks. I will read it: 

Mr. Straus succeeded Mr. Metcalf as Secretary of Commerce and Labor on Decem¬ 
ber 17, 1906, and immediately proceeded, in the face of a continued deterioration in 
the quality and character of immigration, to reduce the percentage debarred during 
the next six months from 1.3 per cent, which it was under Metcalf during the previous 
six months, to 0.8 per cent reduction, or rather breaking down in the administration 
of the law of over 38 per cent. 

One need only visit New York or Boston to get an idea of what is beginning to take 
place. A talk with any of the old immigration officials will readily convince the 
interviewer of the scandalous relaxation that has taken place since December 17, 1906. 
The inspectors, members of the boards of special inquiry, and other officials will tell 
you how they have had to respond to the subtle but unmistakable signs from the 
Secretary’s office at Washington. 

Mr. Sabath. That is an article purporting to have been copied from 
some other paper that is not in existence; is that right ? 

Mr. Hayes. I would suggest that it is probably the Washington 
State Journal. 

Mr. J. H. Patten. I believe there is a paper published here called 
“The Journal,” with an alleged circulation of 100,000. 

Mr. Sabath. In this city? 

Mr. J. H. Patten. Yes, sir; I have seen it. I think John W. 
Hayes is editor. 

Mr. C. S. Atkinson. It is a labor paper. 

Mr. J. H. Patten. I believe it is the Knights of Labor Journal. 
I am sure I can get a copy in five minutes, if you wish to have it. 

Mr. Brooks. It was credited to a paper of that name, and that is 
all I know about it. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I assume you are simply reading from the clip¬ 
ping. 


220 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You are not stating your own views with regard 
to Secretary Straus? 

Mr. Brooks. No, sir. 

I have here the copy of a brief left with President-elect W. H. Taft, 
on January 20, 1909, at Augusta, Ga., by two New York state officials, 
Dr. Albert Warren Ferris, president of the state commission in 
lunacy, and Dr. Sidney D. Wilgus, chairman of the New York state 
board of alienists, both of whom were sent there by their respective 
state bodies to protest against the lax enforcement of the provision 
in our immigration laws debarring certain insane aliens. 

Among other things, the brief says that they believe that 11 the 
immigration laws of 1907 are ample and adequate” to debar the 
insane, “if properly enforced according to their terms.” The brief 
complains of Secretary Straus “stretching” the law and admit¬ 
ting insane aliens under bond. It states that “if the Secretary held 
a brief for the defective, diseased, and insane aliens he could not have 
devised a more specious argument to nullify the immigration laws 
than appears in decision 116, issued October 12, 1908;” says that 
“New York State is no longer willing to receive the insane he is 
landing through executive clemency or on worthless bonds;” and 
that “we regard the Secretary as prejudiced, unreasonable, and 
dangerous.” 

I have that brief here in full. 

Mr. Sabath. From whose brief are you reading now ? 

Mr. Brooks. It is right here in full. 

Mr. Sabath. Prepared by whom ? 

Mr. Brooks. It is a copy of a brief left with Judge Taft, at Augusta, 
Ga., on January 20, 1909, by the New York authorities I quoted. 
The committee was sent down there by their respective boards for 
that purpose. 

On the 18th of last May (1909), the resignation of Robert Watchorn, 
as commissioner of immigration at New York City, according to the 
official White House statement, “was accepted for the good of the 
service,” although there have been interested in his retention a 
number of good people who did not understand the facts in respect to 
the condition of the office.” 

Mr. Bennet. What Member of the House is that ? 

Mr. Brooks. I am not quoting a Member of the House now. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You referred to decisions 116 and 117 of the 
Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor. Did you 
quote from those decisions, or have you quoted from some one else ? 

Mr. Brooks. I was quoting from comments on those decisions. 

Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman should be 
allowed to make his statement without being interrupted further. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I would like to get my mind clear on the state¬ 
ment as he goes along, although I am very anxious to hear the 
gentleman. 

Mr. Brooks. I shall proceed. 

The statement also said that Mr. Watchorn’s “administration of 
the office proved to be unsatisfactory to the President and the Secre¬ 
tary of Commerce and Labor,” and that “the President and the 
secretary (Mr. Nagel) were anxious to have the office administered 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


221 


with a single view to its efficiency in the enforcement of the immi¬ 
gration laws.” 

Now, here is a quotation from the Congressional Record of Febru- 
ary 25, 1909. A Member of the House and of this committee said: 

Not only has there been of late great laxity and indifference on the part of the 
Department of Commerce and Labor in the deportation of Chinese unlawfully in this 
country, but the same spirit has pervaded the whole administration of the law. 

A gentleman connected with the Chinese service, and well up in the service, too, 
told me not long ago, and I have no doubt that he is correct, that he believes that 500 
Chinamen are hire in the city of Washington in violation of the law, and yet he says: 

“lam not allowed to make any move to discover these men, nor to arrest or deport 
them.” 

The only thing that seems to have been done about it (conditions reported to Secre¬ 
tary Straus by Professor Jenks in 1907) was that the honest inspector who gave Jenks 
his information was shorn of his credentials and transferred, and the dishonest employee 
retained, just as Doctor Salmon was transferred from Ellis Island in the fall of 1906 
forgiving J. B. Reynolds information. 

Mr. Kustermann. Give the Member’s name. 

Mr. Brooks. I suppose the gentleman recognizes his own words and 
might acknowledge them. 

Mr. Kustermann. He may not be present. 

Mr. Brooks. I think he is present. 

Mr. Kustermann. Read further. 

Mr. Edwards. It is no secret if it is printed in the Congressional 
Record. 

Mr. Brooks. I think is was Mr. Burnett. 

Mr. Hayes. He is not here. 

Mr. Brooks. Well, I am not acquainted with each one of you gen¬ 
tlemen. I will commence again. 

Not only has there been of late great laxity and indifference on the part of the 
Department of Commerce and Labor in the deportation of Chinese unlawfully in this 
country, but the same spirit has pervaded the whole administration of the law. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Who said that? 

Mr. Brooks. Mr. Burnett, I think. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Can you give the date of the speech? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes; February 25, 1909. 

A gentleman connected with the Chinese service, and well up in the service, too, 
told me not long ago, and I have no doubt that he is correct, that he believes that 500 
Chinamen are here in the city of Washington in violation of the law, and yet he says: 

“I am not allowed to make any move to discover these men, nor to arrest or deport 
them.” 

The only thing that seems to have been done about it (conditions reported to Sec¬ 
retary Straus by Professor Jenks in 1907) was that the honest inspector who gave 
Jenks his information was shorn of his credentials and transferred, and the dishonest 
employee retained, just as Doctor Salmon was transferred from Ellis Island in the 
fall of 1906 for giving J. B. Reynolds information. 

Mr. Brooks. I took these statements hastily, and, as I said, I did 
not expect to appear before you. Mr. Duckworth was to perform this 
service. That is all I wish to say on that subject. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, as considerable discussion has been had on 
the necessity for immigration in the Southern States, and being from 
the South myself I would like to make some observations along that 
line. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What State are you from ? 

Mr. Brooks. Tennessee. 


222 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Elyins. Before you proceed, do I understand that what you 
have been reading here is simply offered here for the purpose of show¬ 
ing that your association had a reason for adopting the resolution ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir; and that we are not charging the same now, 
as our last resolutions of the national convention did not make those 
charges. 

Mr. Sabath. So you believe the laws are now being strictly 
enforced ? 

Mr. Brooks. So far as I know, they are being properly enforced; 
but my intimate knowledge is not sufficient to bank on. 

Mr. Bennet. I would like to ask in what respect the administra¬ 
tion of the laws under Secretary Straus differed from the adminis¬ 
tration of the laws under Secretary Nagle. 

Mr. Brooks. I do not know that I could answer your question 
exactly. 

Mr. Bennet. You say that your organization at one time adopted 
a resolution criticising the laws as they were administered by Secre¬ 
tary Straus ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bennet. But at your last annual convention you not only did 
not adopt such a resolution, but approved the administration of the 
laws as being carried on under Secretary Nagle? I think it would 
interest the committee—it certainly would me—to know what the 
evidence was on which you based your statement that there is a 
difference in the administration of the laws now and as it was ad¬ 
ministered by Secretary Nagle, and what the difference is. 

Mr. Brooks. Well, the percentage has been strikingly increased of 
those who were rejected. That stands upon its face as one kind of 
evidence. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Assuming the fact to be so, would that be evidence 
of a lax administration of the law? 

Mr. Brooks. And we see no complaint here as to the nonenforce¬ 
ment of the law. Those complaints were current then in Congress and 
out of it, and through the press generally, and now we do not see such 
complaints. 

Mr. Bennet. Was your body aware at that time that in the last 
year of Secretary Metcalfs administration there were 925 aliens 
ordered deported, and in the first year of Secretary Straus’s ad¬ 
ministration there were 1,955—an increase of over 100 per cent in the 
deportation ? 

Mr. Brooks. Well, perhaps the increases in deportations were 
greater, and yet the percentage of rejections might not have been as 
great. 

Mr. Bennet. It has been practically the same in the last five years, 
under all administrations—a trifle over or under 100 per cent. 

Mr. Brooks. Well, have not the rejections been increased since 
Mr. Straus went out of office, and since his successor took his place ? 

Mr. Bennet. I would not want to say so, because we have not 
any report that divides the fiscal year into two parts. 

Mr.. Sabath. I think it has increased, because a great many people 
are rejected that ought not to be rejected, and they are rejected with¬ 
out any warrant of law on the part of our present officials. 

Mr. Brooks. Of course, the law should be enforced, but it should 
not be overstepped one way or the other. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


223 


Mr. Bennet. Well, I agree with you. 

Mr. Brooks. I am not in a position to substantiate your position. 
Of course, my knowledge is not intimate enough for that. 

Mr. Edwards. Anyhow, your organization passed the resolution 
which it did, calling for a more strict enforcement of the law, based 
upon the newspaper reports and expressions contained in speeches 
or Members of Congress which you have submitted here; and those 
criticisms not existing now, and not appearing in the daily press, 
lead your organization to believe that the law is being more strictly 
enforced, and you are, therefore, so far as your information goes, 
better satisfied with the present administration? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir; you have stated it fairly. 

Mr. Bennet. Were you aware when that resolution was adopted 
that these charges against Doctor Ferris and Doctor Wilgus, both 
from my State, New York, had been brought to the attention of 
President Roosevelt, and involved but three cases, none of which 
had been passed upon by Secretary Straus, and that President Roose¬ 
velt sustained the Department of Commerce and Labor in every way? 

Mr. Brooks. Well, that might be the case and still not prove any¬ 
thing. Of course, an isolated case might be wrongfully rejected or 
wrongfully admitted, but the general trend of affairs would have 
more to do with it than an isolated case. 

Mr. Bennet. The charges only covered three cases, as to all of 
which I have read every line, and none of which was passed on by 
Secretary Straus. 

Mr. Hayes. Is it not generally understood that the administration 
of the law is more strictly enforced at present than it has been for 
some years ? 

Mr. Bennet. At the particular moment I would not say it was. 
There was a time when they had a former Assistant Secretary, 
since Mr. Straus went out, when the law was rigorously enforced. 
Families were separated, and I agree with Mr. Sabath that the 
spirit of the law was violated absolutely. 

Mr. Elvins. Is it being violated now ? 

Mr. Bennet. At the present time I think it is being administered 
according to the spirit and intent of the law. I agree with this 
gentleman that there is no reasonable cause for any criticism what¬ 
ever of the present administration of the law. 

Mr. Hayes. There was plenty of it before. It came to my per¬ 
sonal knowledge. 

Mr. Sabath. It is coming to my knowledge now that the law is 
being violated by families being separated and being rejected without 
any warrant of law. I have several cases now that I desire to bring 
before this committee at the first opportunity that presents itself. 

Mr. Edwards. I think the gentleman ought to oe permitted to 
proceed with his statement. 

Mr. Sabath. Yes. 

Mr. Brooks. To resume my discussion of the attitude of the or¬ 
ganizations in my section of the country on immigration—we are 
organized in the 29 States I have just named—but I am speaking 
now of the attitude of the Southern States, in particular, because it 
is there it is proposed to divert and distribute immigrants. 

We feel confident that in this matter of the substantial and mate¬ 
rial restriction of the present enormous foreign immigration we also 


224 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


voice the sentiments of the people generally in the agricultural States 
and Territories of the South and West. 

In support of that opinion, we beg to cite a few typical resolutions 
and the actions of a number of southern state legislatures, and the 
results and conclusions of such a canvass as was made several years 
ago by such a leading trade paper as the Manufacturers’ Record, of 
Baltimore, Md. 

For some time certain land speculators, large employers, trans¬ 
portation lines, and apparently foreign interests have been endeavor¬ 
ing to divert, distribute, and direct foreign immigration, particularly, 
to the South. One phase of this agitation has taken the turn of estab¬ 
lishing a southern commercial congress here in Washington, and the 
proposal to build opposite the Shoreliam Hotel, on Fifteenth street, 
a million-dollar building for “A greater nation through a greater 
South,” i. e., the immediate development of all its resources by the 
means of immigration. The project is in the hands of a foreign-born 
gentleman who spent but one year in the South. Last winter ban¬ 
quet after banquet was held at the New Willard, and there seemed 
to be no end to the funds available for the purpose. The Manu¬ 
facturers’ Record, of Baltimore, the leading trade paper of the country, 
in commenting on this and similar other enterprises said editorially 
in its issue of March 4, 1909: 

We have in our archives complete records of every one of these attempts made 
during the last ten years. It appears from these records that there is almost some¬ 
thing more than mere coincidence in the means adopted and even in the language 
employed in trying to persuade representative southern men to give them counte¬ 
nance. 

A later gathering, into which an utterly alien element dominantly but in cloak 
entered, over which a southern governor presided and which also became “perma¬ 
nent,” was, from the earnest standpoint of the southern men concerned in it, for the 
benefit of the South. But it was in reality the outcome of a plan originating in Italy 
to flood the South with Sicilians. That plan in that form was successfully combated 
by the Manufacturers’ Record, but it emerged again under another form in another 
“permanent southern organization,” with another southern governor as president, but 
with a trans-Atlantic steamship company engaged in transporting immigrants from 
southern Europe as apparently the chief beneficiary had the scheme developed. 
Biding their time for another venture whenever the South might be off its guard as 
to immigration, the actual promoters in this country of both these “southern” under¬ 
takings which had deceived representative southern men were found joining hands 
in an organization in New York designed to blind the eyes of this country to the 
evils reeking in immigration from southern Europe, of the kind being sent to this 
country, and to make the National Government an unwitting party to the scheme 
to turn the noxious flood into the South. 

The Manufacturers’ Record knows that representative Southerners would be aston¬ 
ished to learn how close they have come in southern gatherings of various kinds with 
the witting or unwitting agents of these alien-fostered immigration schemes directed 
against the South and its best interests. But immigration has been but one of the 
schemes for the ostensible benefit of the South which in the past ten years have lived 
their little day as long as financial support, usually by the way of New York, has been 
maintained. 

At the risk of loosing long-time friendships and of being misunderstood as criticising 
public officials and business men of the South in our disinterested efforts to prevent 
them from being committed to mistakes for the South, the Manufacturers’ Record 
has never hesitated to call attention to the chances for mistakes in all these move¬ 
ments. We know that deliberate misrepresentation of us has been made by the real 
promoters, but seldom coming into the open, of the movements, which in later years 
have been largely different phases merely of the same movement, but we have been 
content to rest upon the conviction that time will prove the wisdom and good intent 
of our advice. 

Another phase of this same effort has been the endeavor to have 
the States of the South and West establish state immigration bureaus. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


225 


States like Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, 
and Tennessee have repeatedly refused to induce even “desirable 
immigration,” although tlieir legislatures have been annually urged 
to by certain interests. Virginia and North Carolina were persuaded 
to appropriate money for such purposes, but have discontinued 
them. Two years ago last month the Virginia assembly adopted the 
following resolution: 

Resolved by the senate of Virginia (the house of delegates concurring), That our Repre¬ 
sentatives in both Houses of Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to oppose in 
every possible manner the influx into Virginia of immigrants from southern Europe, 
with their Mafia and Black Hand and murder societies, and with no characteristics to 
make them with us a homogeneous people. Believing as we do that upon Anglo-Saxon 
supremacy depends the future welfare and prosperity of this Commonwealth, we view 
with alarm any effort that may tend to corrupt its citizenship. 

North Carolina, through its bureau of labor, in 1906, made a very 
thorough and careful canvass of the wishes and need for immigration 
and found an overwhelming opposition to the inducement or distribu¬ 
tion and diversion of the present foreign immigration to that State. 
The results are published in the Twenty-seventh Annual Report of 
the Bureau of Labor, and take up 284 pages of that report. 

A few years ago South Carolina established a state bureau of immi¬ 
gration, appropriated considerable money, and with a fund generousty 
contributed to by certain cotton-mill men, real-estate speculators, 
and others peculiarly interested, its commissioner of immigration 
went abroad and brought two cargoes of immigrants to South Carolina, 
distributing and finding places for each one of the 762 in various parts 
of the State. To make a long story short, on the 4th day of March, 
1909, an act was approved abolishing the bureau of immigration ana 
forbidding a state official “to attempt directly or indirectly to bring 
immigrants into the State of South Carolina.” 

Mr. Kustermann. Can you tell us where those 700 immigrants 
came from ? I understood they were Belgians. 

Mr. Bennet. They were Belgians. 

Mr. Brooks. Yes; Belgians. 

Mr. Kustermann. They were not from the south of Europe. 

Mr. Brooks. No ; they were from the north of Europe. 

Mr. Kustermann. You were speaking of undesirable immigrants. 

Mr. Brooks. I think they would have been still more undesirable 
if they had been from the south of Europe instead of from Belgium. 

Mr. Sabath. That depends upon the representations made to them 
at the time they were induced to immigrate. 

Mr. Bennet. They were undesirable largely because they did not 
stay in South Carolina ? 

Sir. Brooks. It seems that South Carolina was undesirable to 
them, and it was mutual. [Laughter.] 

Sir. Kustermann. I think that is the reason. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Don’t you personally, as a rule, regard immigra¬ 
tion from Belgium as being fairly desirable ? 

Mr. Brooks. Taken as a general principle, any of the people from 
northwestern Europe—the average citizen of those countries is more 
desirable. 

Such action on the part of South Carolina is typical not only of the 
attitude of the southern legislatures, but of other less official assem¬ 
blages, frequently gotten up as immigration “conferences” and “con- 

49090—10-15 


226 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


ventions.” I have in mind four recent state and interstate immi¬ 
gration meetings of this character, really initiated and promoted by 
the same interests, which in spite of the promoters adopted restrictive 
resolutions. The Alabama Immigration Conference, held at Birming¬ 
ham, Ala., June 13, 1905, adopted the following resolution: 

Resolved , That we express to the Representatives in the Federal Congress from this 
State our earnest desire that they support any reasonable measure looking to the eleva¬ 
tion of the standard of foreign immigration, to the end that criminals, paupers, and 
illiterates be excluded. 

That conference was called for boosting immigration. The trans¬ 
portation and real-estate interests were there in full force. 

The famous Chattanooga Conference on Immigration and Quaran¬ 
tine was a similar gathering, but indorsed President Roosevelt’s 
messages on the subject, one of which, at least, I understand, argued 
strongly for an economic test and the educational or “literacy” test. 
There was a similar outcome to the Nashville conference of Novem¬ 
ber, 1907. 

The last effort was made at Tampa, Fla., where a convention of 
various persons from many States and representing different societies, 
commercial clubs, unions, associations, corporations, railroads, and 
the like, met February 13, 1908; and a number of resolutions were 
adopted, among which is to be found the following: 

Resolved , That the several States carefully consider the question of foreign immi¬ 
gration as a national question, and that our Representatives in Congress be asked to 
urge upon Congress the enactment of such federal legislation as will effectively stem 
the tide of undesirable immigration now pouring into this country through the great 
ports of entry, and such laws as will look to thegcareful examination of applicants 
or admission at the ports of departure. 

My attention has been called to the symposium, incorporated 
March 1 in your hearings, of 93 letters secured from parties three 
years ago in 36 States, in answer to a letter sent out bv the New 
York City National Board of Trade. Three carefully worded ques¬ 
tions seem to have been asked in that letter. 

There is nothing to indicate the number of letters sent out. Only 
17 governors seem to have answered the letters in person or through 
a secretary or some state bureau. Over one-fourth of the replies are 
from railroads, and the other letters come principally from mayors, 
commercial clubs, and real estate men. The origin of the sympo¬ 
sium and the source of the replies would seem to corroborate my 
statement that the only demand for foreign immigration throughout 
the agricultural districts of the South and West comes really from 
the transportation interests, that wish to develop traffic; real estate 
boomers, hoping to sell land thereby; the large employers, always 
demanding cheaper labor, and certain other financial and gambling 
interests, anxious to prevent the farmers properly controlling the 
production and marketing of their crops sufficiently to secure a fair 
and reasonable price. 

According to the letters from South Carolina and Georgia, for 
instance, the National Board of Trade of New York City would have 
this committee believe that those two States were in favor of not 
only the present foreign immigration, but its distribution and diver¬ 
sion to those States. 

There are two replies from South Carolina, one from former Mayor 
Rhett, of Charleston, and the other from former Commissioner of 
Immigration and Agriculture E. J. Watson. As I have pointed out, 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


227 


Mr. Watson’s office has been abolished by the state legislature of 
South Carolina, which affirmatively forbade a state official “to 
attempt directly or indirectly to bring immigrants into” that State. 
Mr. Rnett ran against Mr. Smith for the United States Senate just 
one year after he wrote the letter quoted, on just such a platform, 
while Mr. Smith stood for the abolition of the Immigration Bureau 
and for rigid restriction of foreign immigration. It was fought out 
in joint debate in every county, Mr. Rhett favoring “the restriction 
of undesirables.” Mr. Smith received in the second primary the 
largest majority ever received by any senatorial candidate in South 
Carolina, Mr. Rhett having been eliminated in the first primary. 

With regard to the replies from Georgia, it is to be noted that three 
are from railroads and two from chambers of commerce, which are, 
as a rule, controlled by the real estate and transportation interests. 
There is no reply from Governor Hoke Smith, although he went 
abroad that summer to investigate the matter, began to support it, 
and as a result, although out on the stump every day of the cam¬ 
paign, was denied a reelection by the people of Georgia largely because 
of that trip abroad; the present governor being elected without 
making a single campaign speech.. 

In both of these States the matter of restriction has really been a 
live campaign issue since these letters, published in the National 
Board of Trade Symposium, were written, and the popular verdict 
has been overwhelmingly in opposition to foreign immigration. 

Mr. Goldfogle. One moment. Decisions 116 and 117 have been 
referred to on this hearing and on previous hearings, and many 
misstatements concerning those decisions have been made, and 
much misconstruction placed upon them. So that we might have 
clearly before us the crux of the two decisions, I wish to call atten¬ 
tion to them now. It may save considerable misstatement and mis¬ 
construction hereafter. 

In decision No. 116 of Secretary Straus, dated September 28, 1908, 
it is stated: 

At the hearing— 

That is, the hearing of the case upon which the decision is based— 

At the hearing, however, it has developed that the person so certified is not coming 
to the United States with the intention of remaining or of mingling with the body 
of the people, but solely for the purpose of receiving medical treatment at some 
sanitarium or health resort in the United States, and of departing from the United 
States at the conclusion of such treatment and after only a temporary stay therein. 

Then, after the matter had been argued out by the Secretary in 
this decision No. 116, the Secretary proceeds to say: 

With all the foregoing considerations in mind, and having in view the special 
facts and circumstances of the several specific cases of the character hereinbefore 
described which have arisen on the Canadian border, the department has been 
constrained— 

The Secretary referred in this decision to the cases decided by the 
Supreme Court of the United States, and quoted from those decisions. 
He says: 

The department has been constrained to hold that the particular persons involved 
were not “ aliens ” of the kind intended to be reached by the immigration law, nor 
comprehended in the enumeration of classes excluded thereby, and to permit, under 
conditions stated in each case (to insure their eventual departure, to provide against 
possible contagion, and to save the community from expense) the temporary admission 


228 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


of such foreigners, who were merely seeking an opportunity to recover their health 
in some place or at the hands of some person in the United States. To have done less 
would, in its opinion, have constituted a failure to properly exercise the broad, prac¬ 
tical discretion necessarily vested in a great executive department of the Government 
charged with the administration of so comprehensive a statute as the immigration act. 

I now turn to Decision No. 117, dated December 1, 1908, made by 
Secretary Straus, and in it the Secretary says: 

It having been repeatedly held by the courts that an alien who has in good faith 
acquired a permanent domicile in the United States is not precluded by anything in 
the immigration laws from returning thereto after a temporary absence abroad, the 
department has, of course, governed itself accordingly, reserving, however, the nec¬ 
essary discretion and authority to determine in particular cases as they arise whether 
an alien seeking admission to the United States on the ground of former domicile 
shall be permitted to enter. To entitle an alien to admission on said ground it must 
appear that the domicile acquired was a permanent one, and has not been abandoned. 
This is a question of fact to be determined finally by the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor. An alien may have made frequent visits to the United States, and may have 
previously resided therein for a considerable period of time, but may nevertheless be 
liable to exclusion. 

So that, you see, there has been much misstatement concerning 
decisions Nos. 116 and 117, and evidently the gentlemen who ap¬ 
peared here—no doubt in good faith—have misconstrued decisions 
116 and 117. 

Mr. Brooks. I was quoting from a construction placed on them 
by others—that is, New York state officials, for instance—who spoke 
from their experience, I suppose. 

Mr. Hayes. It is not necessary to put them in the record. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I prefer that so much of them as I have read be 
printed in the record, to preserve the continuity of them. 

Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, it is found that the great percentage 
of these immigrants come over here and stay a short while, and 
then return home with their savings. I believe it is claimed that 
40 per cent do return, and that shows that they are not the kind of 
citizens upon which you can build a permanent republican form of 
government, coming, as they do, from the countries where their 
surroundings are so different from ours. That is an unfortunate 
phase of the question, and another unfortunate phase is that in case 
these citizens do not come up to the requirements of citizenship of 
a Republic like this, they are really a greater hindrance to us if they 
stay here than if they return. 

Every condition is a prophecy of something that is to follow. It 
can not be otherwise, and it is in the purview of statesmanship to 
interpret the effect of conditions. A condition once existed in 
France that was a prophecy of the reign of terror, but its states¬ 
men did not see it. A condition once existed in England that was a 
prophecy of Cromwell, but the statesmen of England did not see it. 
The laws passed by Parliament at one time were a prophecy of Corn¬ 
wallis handing his sword to Washington, but they did not see it. 
Every slave ship fanned across the Atlantic Ocean was a prophecy 
of Sherman’s march to the sea, but the people of that day did not 
realize it, did not see it. 

Now, if this enormous undesirable immigration continues, and if 
it is really undesirable, as the Commissioner-General says in his last 
annual report, from the standpoint of American citizenship, it is a 
prophecy of something that will follow that is certainly appalling to 
contemplate. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


229 


There is such a thing as a people being unable to maintain the civi¬ 
lization that is handed down to them. The Indian was- unable to 
sustain the civilization the white man presented to him in this country. 
The negro was transplanted from Africa here into the bosom of civi¬ 
lization, and he will be unable to sustain that civilization, should he 
be admitted to full citizenship and equality in the South with the 
white man. He would be a hindrance to the South, and nobody 
denies it. 

Now, it is absolutely unfortunate that these things are true. Per¬ 
haps we feel that we are encroaching upon a sentiment in denying 
the immigration of anybody that wants to come here, because our 
ancestors came here from somewhere, and, of course, lots of good 
men are not born in this country. Jesus Christ, for instance. But 
that does not- 

Mr. Goldfogle. Some members of the committee, for instance. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. Sabath. You do not have to go that far back. 

Mr. Brooks. And I assure you that our organization and the far¬ 
mers generally would be as far as anybody from wanting to restrict 
immigration if that immigration was voluntary and came up to all 
the requirements of the standard of citizenship required in this Gov¬ 
ernment. It is our patriotism to mankind and to our country that 
makes us enter our protest against this immigration from southeast 
Europe, western Asia, and the apparently least desirable citizens 
of other parts of the world. I do not know all the powers that are 
behind the movement that has shifted our foreign immigration con¬ 
tinually to the less desirable to that which is so different from us. I 
will not take your time to give my views further on it, even; but we 
know it has been done; the Commissioner-General says so, and we are 
simply presenting to you the attitude of our organization that has 
been repeated year by year in its conventions. 

I believe I have no further remarks to make, unless you have some 
questions. 

Mr. Sabatii. You seem to be well posted. Will you permit me 
to ask you one question? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sabath. You claim there is no objection to certain immigra¬ 
tion. You divide immigration into the desirable and undesirable 
classes, and you say that there is no objection to the desirable immi¬ 
gration. Is it not a fact that about forty or fifty years ago the same 
objection was made, as being undesirable immigration, to what is 
now called desirable immigration ? Were not the same questions and 
the same objections raised to them as being undesirable immigrants? 

Mr. Brooks. I think the immigration that was protested against 
then was quite different from the kind of immigration that we are 
protesting against now. And, then, conditions are quite different 
in this country- 

Mr. Goldfogle. Was it not then called “undesirable ?” 

Mr. Brooks. I did not live then. 

Mr. Sabath. You go back and tell about France and England 
and other countries. You seem to know something about history. 
This is not such a long way off. 

Mr. Brooks. I think, at least, that if this immigration which is 
coming now were coming then the protest made against it would 




230 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


have been much more pronounced and effective than it was, and 
there would have been far better grounds for it, to say the least. 

Mr. Sabath. So you admit that there were no good grounds for 
objecting to the immigration then ? 

Mr. Brooks. No; I do not think that at all. Why not say there 
were not as good grounds as we now have ? 

Mr. Elvins. You think the Know-Nothing party would have been 
more successful in those days if the immigration had been as bad 
then as it is now ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir; if you want to use that term. 

Mr. Sabath. Are you really acquainted with the present immigra¬ 
tion; have you any in your own State? 

Mr. Brooks. We have enough, thank God. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What State are you from ? 

Mr. Brooks. Tennessee. 

Mr. Goldfogle. When you say, “ Thank God,” you mean you are 
glad you have them ? 

Mr. Brooks. We are glad we do not have any more. 

Mr. Sabath. What immigration do you object to, what country? 

Mr. Brooks. Well, it is the quality of citizens, not the country; 
but, of course, certain countries furnish a much greater percentage 
of undesirables than others. 

Mr. Sabath. Can you give us the countries that furnish those ? 

Mr. Brooks. The Sicilian, the southern Italian, the Greek, the 
Syrian, and some from that belt of Africa and Asia surrounding the 
Mediterranean Sea, and farther east, including all Mongolians and 
Hindus. 

Mr. Sabath. Those are the people you most object to ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kustermann. Can you tell us why you object to those ? 

Mr. Brooks. We do not think they are qualified. Their standards 
and ideals are totally different. 

Mr. Kustermann. Don’t they eat enough, or don’t they live high 
enough, or don’t they behave well ? 

Mr. Brooks. We do not think they come up to the standards or 
requirements for citizenship in this country. 

Mr. Kustermann. That is a generality. 

Mr. Sabath. Some of these people had a high grade of civilization 
long before this country was ever dreamt of. 

Mr. Brooks. Yes; but the policy which they pursued in conquer¬ 
ing inferior people and bringing them home as slaves and later allow¬ 
ing them to enter into their citizenship caused the better element to 
be submerged. 

Mr. Sabath. We have been doing a little conquering ourselves of 
late, have we not ? 

Mr. Bennet. Would you bar out the Armenian Christians who are 
being massacred ? 

Mr. Brooks. Well, that is rather a sentimental question. 

Mr. Bennet. No: it is a practical question. 

Mr. Brooks. It all depends on what class they come under. The 
laws as passed and executed would determine that, when they came 
here. 

Mr. Bennet. That is quite an answer. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


231 


Mr. Gardner. Would you object to our passing a special act which 
would admit people who are suffering from religious persecution? 

Mr. Brooks. I do not know as to the difficulty of that kind of a 
law. It might be abused, and it might be necessary, in a special case. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I w T ant to call the attention of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts to the fact that an amendment to a bill having 
in view the proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts referred 
to was offered m the House and advocated and supported by me on 
the floor, and was adopted by the Committee of the Whole, but by a 
bare majorit}L 

Mr. Gardner. I think I voted for one of those amendments. 

Mr. Brooks. If that is all, I thank you very heartily. 

Mr. Bennet. You did not give us your office in the union. 

Mr. Brooks. I am at present a member of the national legislative 
committee of the Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Umon. 

Mr. Bennet. I would like to ask you the direct question, Is it a 
fact that the negro vote is suppressed in the South, as you stated ? 

Mr. Brooks. The negro vote in the South is a subject that you 
people in Congress can thrash out. 

Mr. Bennet. You referred to that subject, or else I would not have 
brought it up. 

Mr. Sabath. You mentioned that the majority of your members 
are in the Southern States. There are also a large number of other 
States in which you have membership—Washington and Western 
States—are there not ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sabath. Is Kansas one of the States you have mentioned ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sabath. And a few others ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sabath. Washington and Oregon and several others? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sabath. So it is not only a few Southern States that are mem¬ 
bers of this organization ? 

Mr. Brooks. Oh, no. 

Mr. Hayes. You have a very large membership in my own county 
in California. 

Mr. Brooks. I have a statement here referring to the sentiment in 
that part of the country, if you wish to put it in the record. 

Mr. Kustermann. Have you come to the conclusion in your own 
mind that an illiterate person is a bad person ? 

Mr. Brooks. Not necessarily and invariably by itself, without 
anything else to be considered, but an illiterate person is on the 
average less able to discharge his duty as a citizen here than a man 
who can read and write. 

Mr. Kustermann. Can he not do his work as well ? 

Mr. Brooks. It is not altogether a question of work. Man does 
not live by bread alone. A mule is a serviceable animal, but you 
can have too many of them. 

Mr. Kustermann. I hope you will not compare them with a mule. 

Mr. Brooks. I am not meaning any reflection at all; but it is not 
simply and solely a question of work. 

Mr. Kustermann. Is it not because you want to find some way of 
restricting immigration to a greater extent; is it not thrown up just 


232 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


for that purpose? Could you not just as well ask us to keep out all 
the people who are red haired and have freckles in their faces as being 
undesirable, because if you read novels you will always find the vil¬ 
lain with red hair? 

Mr. Brooks. I suppose the gentleman intended his suggestion to 
be humorous- 

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Brooks, I would like to ask whether this organ¬ 
ization, known as the Farmers’ Union, representing something like a 
membership of 3,000,000, and extending from the great Northwest 
all through the central part of the United States and the South¬ 
ern States, is not in favor of loosening up on the immigration laws, 
and does not see any great need for a distribution of these immigrants 
through this section of the territory as represented by your organ- 
zation ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. They do not desire foreign immigration. 

Mr. Edwards. You do not consider that the farming industry and 
the other industries of these great States are in such need of more 
labor that they should establish these agencies for the distribution 
of these immigrants ? 

Mr. Brooks. No, sir. 

Mr. Edwards. And these representations that have been made to 
that effect you do not consider as fair representations of the desires 
and needs of these great States? 

Mr. Brooks. I am quite sure of it, from intimate association with 
farm organizations throughout the country. We have never had a 
protest against our resolutions on the subject from any State. 

Mr. Bennet. I did not catch the last sentence. 

Mr. Brooks. I say we do not have any protests at all against re¬ 
strictive resolutions passed from anyone in any State where it has 
been offered. 

Mr. Bennet. It has been often said through the press and in other 
ways that because of the high prices of farm products consequently 
the high cost of living is, to some extent, at least, brought about by 
the scarcity of farm labor, by reason of the fact that the farmers 
can not get sufficient labor to enable them to cultivate the farms 
and to produce the agricultural products, and your organization does 
not find that to be the case ? 

Mr. Brooks. We do not find it to be the case. As it is, we find it 
hard to keep our own people on the farms. The necessity for their 
being there is not great enough to keep them there, and they are 
drifting to the cities and towns. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Especially are they coming over to our city of 
New York. 

Mr. Brooks. Not much of this foreign immigration seems to want 
to go to the country when it comes. If it does take the place of our 
laborers, they generally drift to somewhere else, even over the border 
into Canada. That shows that they do not fill a place that needs 
them, but they cause others to leave. 

As to the South and the North, the North having absorbed the 
greater part of this immigration, I have some figures here which 
might be looked upon as egotistical, being a southern man, giving the 
population and growth and industrial development of the South and 
the North since 1860, and I will ask to have them copied in the 
record. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


233 


This, taken from the Tradesman (Chattanooga, Tenn.), one of the 
leading trade papers of the South, shows that the South has not suf¬ 
fered from its lack of foreign immigrants—their not going there to 
any large extent—and that in population, labor supply, out of its 
own loins, bank deposits, railroad mileage, and in every material and 
commercial way, the South has increased at a faster percentage than 
the North with all its influx of aliens, where there is race suicide, etc. 



United States 
in 1860 

South In 1900, 

Population. 

31,000,000 
$253,000,000 
30,000 
15,173,000 
884,474 
$333,570,000 
5,035,000 
$16,159,000,000 

26,000,000 

$745,000,000 

62,000 

67,700,000 

2,743,000 

$557,242,000 

8,615,000 

$15,500,000,000 

Bank deposits. 

Railroad mileage. 

Coal production, in tons. 

Pig iron, in tons. 

Exports. 

Cotton spindles. 

Valuation of property. 



The 18 Southern States and Territories have received practically 
no foreign immigrants during the last fifty years, only a few hundred 
going to each State or Territory; still its total population, either 
white or black, or both, has increased at over 30 per cent per decade, 
while the population of the North, the labor supply, has not increased 
quite as fast. The native birth rate in the Northeastern States, where 
tne bulk, about three-fourths, of the present alien influx settles or is 
destined, has fallen off until it almost equals the death rate in some 
localities—race suicide. Forty per cent of the present influx of aliens 
goes back within a few years with its savings; three-fourths of it is 
male adults, unmarried, and does not come back again after returning 
to its native lands, as is shown by official statistics, which show that 
only about one-tenth of the number that comes has ever been here 
before. 

Mr. Bennet. Nobody denies that the industrial development of 
the South has been tremendous. I am a northern man myself, but 
everyone knows that fact. 

Mr. Hayes. You were speaking of the need of agricultural laborers 
in the South. Are you personally acquainted with any case where 
any of the farm products of the South, like cotton, has perished or 
been destroyed because there has been no labor to harvest it ? 

Mr. Brooke. No, sir. The crops are all gathered, so far as I am 
acquainted with the facts. Of course it may be that an unusual 
storm will delay the picking of cotton a while, but it will be gathered 
eventually, and that periodic short seasonal demand for labor could 
not be supplied by immigration. It could not come and go every 
fall, and it would not be desirable if it could, and if they stayed there 
and raised more cotton they would be in the same fix that we are in. 
The demand for it is mostly in the papers. 

Mr. Sabath. So you do not depend very much on the articles that 
you see in the papers from time to time about the scarcity of labor in 
the South? 

Mr. Brooks. As to this, I am sure it is exaggerated greatly. 

Mr. Edwards. Right there; your organization is composed of 
employers; that is, the individual members of your organization 
are many of them employers of labor ? 


















284 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Edwards. Being farmers, they have to employ more or less 
labor? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Edwards. And you find no scarcity? 

Mr. Brooks. No, sir; we do not find a scarcity. If we did we 
would make a different record in our proceedings. 

Mr. Bennet. If you do not rely on newspaper articles in that 
regard, why do you read before our committee, as evidence, certain 
articles from newspapers in relation to an alleged laxity in the ad¬ 
ministration of the immigration laws? 

Mr. Brooks. Well, those articles purport to be quotations from 
government officials, and I simply offered them. I hated to take up 
the time on that subject, but I wanted to show why those references 
were in the resolution. 

Mr. Bennet. You do not, then, indorse from your own knowledge, 
any of the statements in those papers ? 

Mr. Brooks. So far as my own personal, intimate knowledge of 
the facts is concerned, I do not, because I am not stationed at any of 
those places. 

Mr. Gardner. I am entirely in favor of your position, but, in 
justice to our immigration officials, I believe that they are most 
careful in enforcing the law, and they are most excellently enforcing 
the law, with the exception of the laws relating to Mongolian im¬ 
migration, which are enforced as well as they can be enforced, con¬ 
sidering the vast extent of our borders. Although I am entirely in 
sympathy with your position on the main question, I think you are 
wrong on that question. 

Mr. Bennet. You said something about bringing illiterates into 
our citizenship. Are you aware of the fact that since the 29th of 
June, 1906, when the naturalization statute was passed, no one can be 
admitted to citizenship who can not sign his name in English ? 

Mr. Sabath. They must speak the English language. 

Mr. Bennet. Yes; and must be able to write his name in English; 
so that no illiterate can now become a citizen of the United States. 

Mr. Brooks. Well, I can only repeat that if the requirements 
that are now made are not sufficient for the restriction, we simply 
want more. 

Mr. Bennet. I am not talking about the restriction at all; I am 
talking about citizenship, which is an entirely different thing. You 
were not aware that there was such a statute, were you ? 

Mr. Brooks. I do not know that I knew of the particular act you 
refer to. 

Mr. Bennet. Or of the requirement ? 

Mr. Hayes. The gentleman from New York is referring to the 
naturalization law, not immigration. A man can not be natural¬ 
ized unless he can speak English. 

Mr. Brooks. Oh, I see the point. Well, it is rather unfortunate 
for a man to emigrate to a country where he can not be naturalized. 

Mr. Edwards. It would be unfortunate for the country, too, if we 
would admit a lot of people here whom we can not naturalize. 

Mr. Bennet. That presents another question. I will ask him if 
he knows that statistics show that 25 per cent of the aliens admitted 
to this country can not read or write, and that when these people 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


235 


present themselves for citizenship, the illiteracy decreases between 
the time of the filing of the declaration and the time of admission to 
citizenship, over 50 per cent, over half. 

Mr. Brooks. I do not really see that there is much in that. Of 
course it does not take a man that has any sense at all a long time to 
learn how to sign his name. 

Mr. Bennet. I am not talking about signing his name; I am talk¬ 
ing about illiteracy. 

Mr. Brooks. I look upon that as merely an incidental part of this 
question. 

Mr. Bennet. Don’t you think we ought to take into consideration, 
in considering the so-called illiteracy test, the fact, if it is a fact, that 
in some of the countries from which the immigrants come they are 
prohibited by statute and by usage from sending their children to 
school ? 

Mr. Brooks. Well, of course that allowance would appeal to our 
sentiment, but it would not be worth anything practically. 

Mr. Bennet. It would not be what ? 

Mr. Brooks. I say it would appeal to our sentiment, but it would 
be of no service to us practically. 

Mr. Bennet. Don’t you think there is any difference between a man 
who has had an opportunity to learn to read and who does not do so 
and a man who would like to learn to read if he could, but who is pro¬ 
hibited by law from doing so ? 

Mr. Brooks. Of course there would be a difference of allowance, as 
a mere matter of favor. 

I thank you. 

The Chairman. We will hear from Mr. Roe. 

STATEMENT OF A. A. ROE, REPRESENTING THE BROTHERHOOD 

OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCO¬ 
MOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN. 

Mr. Roe. I do not know that I can say what I would like to say 
Within this short time. I also have an appointment for 12 o’clock, 
and I would appreciate it if an arrangement could be made so that I 
could appear before this committee before this matter is closed up. 
I would like to be heard on the subject before it is closed up. 

The Chairman. Your request is granted. We will hear you to¬ 
morrow morning at 10.30 o’clock. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned.) 


[Copy of brief left with Judge Taft, Augusta, Ga., January 20, 1909.] 


In re protest against the reappointment of Secretary Straus as Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor of the United States, by Dr. Albert Warren Ferris, president of the New 
York State commission in lunacy, authorized by the three commissioners to make 


this protest. 

January 20, 1909. 

New York State cares for 30,000 insane persons in her 15 public state hospitals. 
About 45 per cent of these insane persons are of foreign birth, whereas less than 35 
per cent of the total population of the State is of foreign birth. 

New York receives 35 per cent of the entire foreign immigration into the United 


States. 



236 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Of [immigrants admitted to hospitals or certified as defective or diseased on arrival 
or held for special inquiry, over 70 per cent remain in New York. 

New York State maintains a board of three alienists who detect as far as possible 
the incoming alien insane, with a view to securing their deportation under section 2 of 
the immigration act of 1907 and to deporting alien insane who appear in the different 
hospitals throughout the State, from time to time. 

Following the example of New York State, the Marine-Hospital Service also estab¬ 
lished a board of three alienists, who work in harmony with the New York men. 

The immigration laws of 1907 are ample and adequate if properly enforced according 
to their terms. Under certain rules, established by the Commissioner-General of 
Immigration under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, certain 
alien insane are landed whose landing is especially forbidden in plain terms by sec¬ 
tion 2 of the immigration laws. Now, these rules, according to section 22, shall not be 
“inconsistent with law.” Yet rule 6, Appeals, page 31, paragraph 2, is inconsistent 
with the law in that it provides for the admission of an insane alien if not “likely to 
become a public charge.” Section 2 of the laws, although containing other provisos, 
makes no provision for landing insane aliens who may not become public charges. 
The same paragraph of rule 6 arranges that the medical certificate of mental defect 
and the determination of the existence of insanity by qualified medical experts shall 
be considered by a lay “board of inquiry,” who shall “reach their own conclusions,” 
since it is stated that “the question to be determined is a practical one quite as much 
as a medical one.” We hold that this rule is unlawful, that the question is purely a 
medical one, and that section 2 grants no opportunity for such interpretation or 
amendment. 

Rule 20 (p. 39) provides for admission under bond of aliens suffering from “some 
physical defect” only. The Secretary stretches this rule, improperly, to cover cases 
of insanity, and admits them under bond, whereas section 2 of the laws gives him no 
such authority. The Secretary here falls back on section 26, which gives limited 
authority as follows: An alien “liable to be excluded because likely to become a 
public charge or because of physical disability other than tuberculosis or a loathsome 
or dangerous contagious disease may, if otherwise admissible, nevertheless be admitted 
in the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, upon the giving of a suitable 
and proper bond,” etc. The Secretary lands insane aliens under such a'bond ille¬ 
gally, we claim, because they are not “otherwise admissible.” While not suffering 
with a contagious disease, they are positively forbidden to land under section 2. We 
hold he acts illegally when he lands them under bond. 

According to section 20, when landed in violation of the law, an alien shall be taken 
into custody and deported after becoming a public charge from conditions existing 
before landing. Cases landed improperly by the Secretary are brought to his notice 
after they become public charges in our state hospitals for the insane, and even if it is 
proved that they were brought from foreign insane asylums to this country, he still 
refuses to deport them. Yet section 20 is mandatory. 

If the Secretary held a brief for the defective, diseased, and insane aliens he could 
not have devised a more specious argument to nullify the immigration laws than 
appears in “decision No. 116,” issued October 12, 1908, from the Department of Com¬ 
merce and Labor, and termed an “interpretation of immigration act.” 

On page 2 of this decision he suggests that “the Secretary may hold in individual 
cases that the particular person concerned may not fall within the general scope of 
the act.” By what authority can he hold that a particular insane alien does not fall 
within the scope of the phrase “all insane persons” of section 2 of the laws? 

He states (p. 2) that “the immigration law deals with individuals in the mass” and 
that the act “is concerned with a stream of immigrants rather than with immigrants 
singly.” Is not this a cunning evasion? Shall we judge our drinking water as a 
stream, disregarding the typhoid units we see are in it? Shall we admit several 
anarchist units because the stream averages well? 

He adds that the act “provides for the exclusion of aliens by classes rather than by 
specific enumeration.” What does this mean? Are the forbidden insane belonging 
to the industrious classes or the well-to-do classes to be admitted with the class, even 
though insane? He entirely misses the meaning of the term “class” in the law. 

On page 3 of the decision he says that “alien” used without the word “immigrant” 
nevertheless means “alien immigrant,” and then by specious reasoning decides that 
the temporary sojourner has not migrated, and hence is not an immigrant, and, further, 
that the law r which expressly forbids the landing of an “alien” afflicted with disease 
or mental defect really means to admit such an “alien” if not an immigrant, for he 
insinuates that the framers of the law undoubtedly meant to insert the word “immi¬ 
grant” where they expressly omitted it. Our answer to this shift is that section 2 of 
the laws does not say “immigrant,” but “all insane persons” comprised under the 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


237 


term “aliens.” Is not the Secretary perilously near assisting forbidden aliens to 
land? The case the Secretary cites, bottom of page 3 and top of page 4 of the decision, 
argues strongly against this position. 

On page 6 of the decision the Secretary tries to identify landing “with the intention 
of deporting therefrom after a temporary stay” with “passing through in transit,” the 
latter being allowed by law, the former not being allowed by law. 

The Secretary tries to distract our attention by altruistic sentiments regarding “our 
conceptions of liberty,” “health and happiness and fortune;” but we can not swerve 
from-our plain duty as laid down in section 2 where it says “all insane persons” shall 
be excluded. 

We regard the Secretary as prejudiced, unreasonable, and dangerous. 

New York State is no longer willing to receive the insane he is landing through 
executive clemency or on worthless bonds. 

Appended hereto are some instances of what we consider improper landing, by the 
Secretary, of forbidden insane aliens. 

In some instances of the landing of insane aliens our physicians are told at first 
that there is not sufficient evidence produced to warrant belief by the Secretary that 
the cause of insanity existed prior to landing. In many of these instances affidavits 
are immediately obtained which give ample and sufficient evidence, and then there 
follows a plan of allowing the retention of these aliens through their friends giving 
bond that they will not become public charges and paying “the reimbursing rate” to 
our hospitals. This “reimbursing rate” of $3.50 per week is about one-half of the 
actual cost of maintaining a patient, and therefore the patient is certainly a public 
charge. Besides this, it is a fact that the New York State hospitals are intended for 
the people of our State and not for deportable aliens. 

The following cases have all come up within the past year: 

No. 1923, Fannie Cannon. Located at Manhattan State Hospital, January 23, 1908. 
Landed March 29, 1906. Had been insane five years prior to landing and gained a 
landing in violation of law. Was bonded by Mr. Lauterbach and the board of directors 
of the Hebrew Orphan Asylum. Five children became public charges, one or two hav¬ 
ing been born in this country, and they were cared for by the Hebrew Orphan Asylum. 

No. 2092, Rosie Golupchuch. Located at Central Islip State Hospital, March 26, 
1908. Landed May 22, 1907. As in all of these cases, no attempt was made to dis¬ 
pute the fact contained in our certificates. The alien was landed under bond, Sep¬ 
tember 29, 1908. 

No. 2118, Bertha Cerowsky. Located at Manhattan State Hospital, April 3, 1908. 
Landed November 12, 1907. Bonded September 29, 1908. 

No. 2177, Cecelia Bonne. Fresh from Morningside Asylum, Scotland. Landed 
March 9, 1908. Admitted Poughkeepsie State Hospital, April 24, 1908. Then about 
two months out of the asylum in Scotland, but landed under bond. 

No. 2178, Florence Bonne. Daughter of the above was from the same asylum. 
Landed same date. A chronic lunatic. 

No. 2218, Minnie Drucker or Trener. Landed • September 17, 1907. Admitted 
May 13, 1908, to Central Islip State Hospital. An imbecile with episodes. Landed 
under bond. 

No. 2436, Joseph Zaharia. Landed June 16, 1907. Admitted to Manhattan State 
Hospital, August 1, 1908. Insane for ten years. Given a landing under bond. 

It is to be understood that in all of these cases all of the alienists agreed that the 
cause of insanity existed prior to landing. The fact that this existed is not disputed 
by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, but he maintains that by bonding these 
people to pay the reimbursing rate in the public institutions that they are no longer 
public charges and hence not amenable to deportation. (Note. —Rule 20 does not 
permit landing insane aliens under bond.) 

The following cases also were considered to be “prior to landing” cases by every¬ 
body except the Secretary, who gave them a landing without bonding them and with¬ 
out specific excuses. 

No. 1691, Fannie Heyman. Landed October 5, 1906. Admitted to Manhattan 
State Hospital November 1, 1907. Insane twice prior to landing. Secretary refused 
to deport. This case was recently readmitted to Manhattan State Hospital, following 
the birth of a child who, of course, is an American citizen. Another attempt will be 
made to deport this case, as this is her fourth attack of insanity within the last four years. 

No. 1855, Paula Cohen. Landed January, 1907. Located at Central Islip State 
Hospital, December 28, 1907. The alien was given a landing notwithstanding both 
certificates 

No. 1996, Sure Medmann. Landed October 9, 1906. Located at Manhattan State 
Hospital, February 21, 1908. Secretary refused to deport notwithstanding both 
certificates. 


238 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


No. 2119, Bessie Wodofski. Located at Manhattan State Hospital April 6, 1908. 
A chronic case. Landed under bond. 

Doctor Mabon wrote to-day that the people going on the bond in this case have 
expressed the desire of giving up the bond. This is the case in which some of the 
friends told Doctor Mabon that they would take this step as soon as three years had 
expired. Only two years have expired at this time, and the commissioner has been 
asked to take up the case again and dispose of it on its merits. Of course we are 
ignorant of the ultimate disposal of the case at this time. 


[Extract from speech of Hon. E. A. Hayes in House, February 25, 1909. 

In 1906 President Roosevelt appointed a commission, composed of J. W. Jenks, 
R. M. Easley, and J. B. Reynolds, to consider the Chinese boycott and the smuggling 
of Chinese into the United States. That commission reported to Secretary Straus in 
1908, and the concluding paragraphs of that report are as follows: 

“Our commission, therefore, has reached the conclusion that the demoralization of 
the bureau in its Chinese service is widespread, and unless radically reformed serious 
complications, both political and commercial, are threatened. Our commission did 
not consider that its duty was to make definite, formal charges against particular offi¬ 
cials, except as incidental results of investigation, but to present to you as full a 
statement as possible of the bureau’s relation to the causes of the boycott, leaving it 
to you to determine what action should be taken. 

“In no point does the demoralization of the bureau appear more striking than in 
its failure to prevent the smuggling of coolies. We found no evidence of systematic 
efficient effort to check such widespread violations of the law. The recommenda¬ 
tions of Greenhalge to the commissioner-general that the Government should attempt 
to catch the leading white smugglers, upon whom the smuggling system depends, 
seemed to your commission the most practicable method of securing substantial 
results. This suggestion appears to have been unheeded. From my present knowl¬ 
edge of the situation I am confident that with intelligent and energetic handling the 
extensive smuggling which exists to-day might be practically wiped out. 

“It is therefore the earnest hope of your commission that the relations between the 
Chinese in this country and the American Government, through the Bureau of Immi¬ 
gration, may be essentially improved; that more determined effort and persistent 
effort may be made for the suppression of blackmail and the smuggling of Chinese 
coolies, and that a higher standard in the selection of immigration officials may be 
enforced.” 

These conditions were brought to the attention of the proper department long ago. 
In August and September, 1907, Professor Jenks, of the Immigration Commission, 
with Mr. Atkinson, secretary of that commission, visited the Canadian and Mexican 
borders, investigating and reporting conditions to the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor. On his return from that trip he gave to Secretary Straus evidence of com¬ 
plicity on the part of a number of inspectors in the wholesale smuggling of Chinese 
on both borders, and I ought to say that I do not get this information from Professor 
Jenks. 


TClipping from tbe New York Tribune, May 19, 1909.] 

W. WILLIAMS NAMED—PRESIDENT APPOINTS HIM COMMISSIONER OP IMMIGRATION. 

The President to-day sent the name of William Williams, of New York City, to the 
Senate as Commissioner of Immigration at Ellis Island, regarded as the most important 
post in the immigration system of the country. The following statement was given 
out at the White House: 

“This post has been recently held by Robert Watchorn, whose administration of the 
office proved to be unsatisfactory to the President and the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor, although there have been interested in his retention a number of good people 
who did not understand the facts in respect to the condition of the office. Mr. 
Watchorn’s resignation was not requested, but he was under investigation by Mr. 
Nagle, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and his course in office was the subject 
of inquiry at the time he tendered and insisted upon his resignation. His resignation 
was acepted for the good of the service. 

“Mr. Williams has had a very long and thorough experience in the administration 
of this office, and resigned it voluntarily to resume the practice of law in New York 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


239 


City. The President and the Secretary were anxious to have the office administered 
with a single view to its efficiency in the enforcement of the immigration laws and to 
a proper protection of the immigrants coming into this country. Mr. Williams’s 
record in his previous administration insures this result. Mr. Williams is a Yale man 
and a friend of the President’s, and was not a candidate for appointment, but most 
reluctantly yielded to the insistence of the President and the Secretary that he take 
the office in order to put it again on a proper basis. 

“It has been reported that Mr. Watchorn’s resignation was due to political exigency. 
This statement is utterly unfounded, and the appointment of Mr. Williams is the most 
complete refutation of that statement that could be made. The Secretary of Com¬ 
merce and Labor and Mr. Williams have had conferences about the administration of 
Ellis Island and are in complete accord as to how the island should be administered.” 

Mr. Williams, who was born in London forty-six years ago, was appointed to succeed 
Thomas Fitchie as Commissioner of Immigration of this port in April, 1902. He held 
the place until January, 1905, when he sent his resignation to President Roosevelt, 
who, after expressing his regret that Mr. Williams desired to resign, appointed RoLert 
Watchorn as his successor. Mr. Williams was graduated from Yale University in 1884 
and from the Harvard Law School in 1888. He spent much of his early life at school 
in Germany. After his admission to the bar he opened a law office in*this city, and 
in 1892 was one of the junior counsel for the Government in the Bering Sea arbitration. 
At the time of the Spanish war he took the field with Squadron A in 1898, and was 
commissioned as major in the Quartermaster’s Department. Mr. Williams is a Repub¬ 
lican, but has not taken any active part in politics. For many years he has made the 
University Club his home. 


[Matter showing attitude of the Northwestern States and that our public domain is gone and that our 
population is recoiling upon itself and crowding into our cities and across into Canada.} 

Recently in an elaborate address before the St. Paul Commercial Club, James J. 
Hill said: “Our public domain is exhausted. Last year over a million people came 
from across the Atlantic to the United States, and the natural increase certainly is a 
million and a half more. What is to become of these people? They are to be driven 
into the factories and workshops. They can go or crowd us over into the Canadian 
Northwest, as many have been crowded. But that country will be populated to its 
comfortable extent very soon, much sooner than you think. It has not an unlimited 
area.” 

The 1909 annual report of the superintendent of immigration shows that during 
the twelve months ending March 31, 59,832 United States citizens settled in Canada, 
taking with them money and effects valued at $60,000,000. 

Like the Italians, Greeks, and Slovaks, many of the Austrians and Hungarians 
are here only for a few years to earn and save a little money and then return to their 
own country, while others come to take their place. (Wisconsin Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, 1905-6, p. 318.) 


[Article from the Farmers’ Union News, Union City, Ga., February 10, 1900. 

On October 13, Mr. Oscar Straus, the present Secretary of Commerce and Labor, a 
member of President Roosevelt’s Cabinet, and under whom and in whose department 
is the Bureau of Immigration, gave to the Associated Press at Washington another one 
of his slick, ingenious news items. 

The opposition of Straus to all immigration legislation is already notorious and 
proverbial, and yet he is in charge of the enforcement of our immigration laws; his 
pro-immigration attitude is nothing short of scandalous. Coming, as he does, from 
Wall street, and being identified, as he always has been, with its financial explcitors, 
his fragrant relaxation and breaking down of the id ministration of our immigration 
and other laws which further the selfish interests of cotton gamblers, stock wateiers, 
and predatory cliques has not been in the least surprising. 

Mr. Straus succeeded Mr. Metcalf as Secretary of Commerce and Labor on December 
17, 1906, and immediately proceeded, in the face of a continued deterioration in the 
quality and character of immigration, to reduce the percentage debarred during the 
next six months from 1.3 per cent, which it was under Metcalf during the previous 
six months, to 0.8 of a per cent reduction, or rather breaking down in the administra¬ 
tion of the law over 38 per cent. 

Such statistics, indisputable as they are, contain a very meager indication of the 
violence that Oscar Solomon Straus has done to laws and regulations which have been 




240 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


found absolutely necessary to protect the Northeast, and, in fact, the whole country, 
from the stream of the lower foreign classes that have been poured in upon us from 
the worst sections of Europe and Asia. One need only visit New York or Boston to 
get an idea of what is beginning to take place and the necessity for sifting out the 
Very undesirable elements, social dregs, and really scum of foreign populations that 
are being dumped upon us by foreign countries and foreign steamship lines. A talk 
with any of the old immigration officials will readily convince the interviewer of the 
scandalous relaxation that has taken place since December 17, 1906. The inspectors, 
members of the boards of special inquiry, and other officials will tell you how they 
have had to respond to these subtle but unmistakable signs from the Secretary’s 
office at Washington. They will tell you how the personnel of the force has changed, 
how men who did not respond have lost their positions or been transferred, and how 
foreigners of Mr. Straus’s religious faith have been promoted and appointed to every 
official vacancy occurring in order to carry out his outrageous antirestriction views. 

At Washington Mr. Straus has under him as chief of the new Division of Information 
Mr. Powderly, who several years ago was forced out of the commissioner-generalship. 

Powderly was, until Mr. Straus got hold of him, a restrictionist. He has spoken 
and written so often in favor of restriction that some writers are still quoting him 
because of the weight and authority naturally attaching to the utterances of one occu¬ 
pying the high office of Commissioner-General of Immigration. He knows this, and, 
knowing it, must feel greatly embarrassed when, to keep a job, he manufactures new 
speeches and opinions at variance with those of only yesterday. 

We have no particular objections to his holding down a government job. He is as 
much entitled to it as the man who made his appointment. What we do object to is 
his touring the country at our, the Government’s, expense in favor of more immigrants; 
and to his manufacturing officially a lot of supercilious, cheap, humanitarian talk in 
favor of immigration, which the European immigration societies, the foreign steam¬ 
ship companies, and American employers of cheap labor, land speculators, and stock 
gamblers will use at home and abroad to increase the influx of foreign undesirables. 
It is his tommy-rot gabble about the large amount of uncultivated cotton lands in the 
South and the great need of southern lands and planters for farm labor with which to 
increase the amount of cotton produced, to which we make serious objection. He is 
not telling the truth when he says that southern farmers need and want not only the 
prospective foreign influx of brownish races from southeastern Europe and western 
Asia, but will also be glad to have distributed among them the foreign classes from 
the city slums of the Northeast, which are the cause of so much poverty, disease, crime, 
and political corruption there. 

This proposal of Mr. Straus and Mr. Powderly to distribute the incoming tide and 
the stranded thousands of poverty-stricken, diseased, and disruptive foreign elements 
now in the northeastern cities has, of course, met with the approval of the weary 
charity workers and others of the Northeast anxious to get rid of the serious immigra¬ 
tion evils from this country being made a dumping ground for undesirable foreign 
immigration. It is by means of this false distribution wrinkle that Secretary Straus 
plans to prevent, not only the enactment of additional needed restrictive measures, 
but the decent enforcement of existing immigration laws which are such a very poor 
protection to the country’s welfare, even when vigorously enforced. This distribu¬ 
tion hoax is gotten up to silence the Northeast’s demand for additional restrictive 
legislation. All that is necessary to make it good is a little evidence tending to show 
that there is room down South. Now, Mr. Straus proposes to supply this, for, accord¬ 
ing to his last news item, he is sending out 806,000 return postal cards. These cards 
will go to the various rural-delivery carriers in the States of Virginia, West Virginia, 
North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and other Southern States for distribution 
among the farmers with whom he desires to get in personal touch, and whom he says 
need and want aliens. 

Let every union man be on the watch for these postal cards. They are coming 
806,000 strong. Ask your rural-route carrier for several of them, and sit right down 
and tell Messrs. Straus and Powderly what you think of their subtle scheme to commit 
the South to foreign immigration. And if you don’t get a return postal card, don’t 
wait, write him at Washington, D. C., on one of your own. And don’t forget to make 
your meaning clear. Tell him that you see through his crafty scheme to go to Con¬ 
gress and the United States Immigration Commission with these replies as proof that 
the South is in favor of this present foreign influx of brownish alien races, and that 
you want to register an emphatic protest against their admission and in favor of the 
vigorous enforcement of existing laws and the enactment of additional restrictive 
measures, such as the money test, and increased head tax, and the illiteracy test. 
And go him one better, and tell him that you don’t want any more outside interference 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


241 


or intermeddling with not only southern government but also southern industry and 
labor. And tell him further that you want to see the Bureau of Information and 
Display, at whose head is Mr. Powderly, and which is being worked over into a foreign 
employment agency and a bureau of distribution of aliens to the South, abolished— 
and ask him to kindly turn your card over to the Immigration Commission, with the 
request that your protest be noted in its report. Don’t forget to tell Messrs. Powderly 
and Straus and also your Congressmen and Senators that what you want is not the 
distribution of these aliens, but their exclusion. Tell them that you have had expe¬ 
rience with one alien race, and that you do not care to run the risk of history repeating 
itself by bringing in a kindred race of brownish people who are sure to cause all kinds 
of trouble, as they have in the few localities to which these brownish people have 

f one in the South. Tell them that you do not want any more of the Mafia, the Black 
land, the Camorra, the Hunchakist, and other murderous bands. Tell it to them 
now, and tell it to them in as strong, plain, and unmistakable language as you can 
find. Don’t wait. Do it now, else it will be too late, and lest you forget. (The 
Journal, Washington, D. C.) 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington , D. C., March 9, 1910. 

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. Benjamin F. Howell 
in the chair. 

Others present were: Representatives Hayes, Moore (Texas), Sab- 
ath, O’Connell, Goldfogle, Burnett, Kustermann, and Elvins. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we are to meet this morning to hear 
Mr. Roe, who represents various railroad organizations and employees. 
Mr. Roe, you may make your statement. 

Air. Burnett. What branch of the railroad service, Air. Roe, do you 
represent ? 

Air. Roe. I represent the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and 
the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Air. T. J. 
Brooks, who appeared yesterday for the Farmers’ Union, would like 
to have just a moment to say something to the committee, and I give 
way to him. 

Mr. Brooks. Air. Chairman, I wish to make a statement merely for 
the sake of justice to the record. It was called into question yester¬ 
day as to whether or not there was such a paper as The Journal pub¬ 
lished in this city, from which I quoted, and I now present a copy of 
The Journal [laying a copy on the table], from which Air. Duckworth 
took the Farmers’ Union News article. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Air. Brooks. It is published here in the city of Washington, at 43 
B street NW., and the editor tells me that he has a circulation of 

18°, 000 . . ^ 

Mr. O’Connell. Is that circulation certified to the post-office 

people ? 

Air. Brooks. I could not say. The editor, Mr. Hayes, stated that 
to me. It is published right across the street here, in the same block 
as the Immigration Commission is situated. 

Air. O’Connell. Is that paper connected with the American Fed¬ 
eration of Labor ? 

Air. Brooks. No, sir. The Knights of Labor. 

Air. O’Connell. Has it any affiliation with the American Federa¬ 
tion of Labor, I mean ? 

Mr. Brooks. The affiliation between the Knights of Labor and the 
American Federation of Labor I am not acquainted with. 


49090 - 10 - 


-16 



242 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Hayes. No; there is none. 

Mr. Brooks. There was also a question raised—in particular by 
Mr. Bennet, I believe—with regard to whether any member of this 
committee had said on the floor of the House on the 25th of February, 
1901, the words which I read. Those words were taken from a 
speech reported on page 3216 of the Congressional Record, and deliv¬ 
ered by Congressman E. A. Hayes, who, I believe, is a member of the 
committee and is present here to-day. The other extract was taken 
from a speech delivered in the House by Congressman John L. Bur¬ 
nett, who, I believe, is a member of the committee and a member of 
the Immigration Commission, and is also present. 

Mr. Burnett. What was that extract ? I was not here yesterday. 

Mr. Brooks. It appears on page 3921 of the Record of the same 
Congress; that is, volume 43. Mr. Bennet must have been present 
when the speech was delivered in the House, as he asked a question, 
according to the Congressional Record, nine lines above the portion 
from which I quoted. 

The Chairman. The statement you made yesterday was in regard 
to Mr. Burnett, and then you said another member of the commis¬ 
sion, not of the committee. That is what was taken exception to. 

Mr. IIayes. I am not a member of the commission. 

Mr. Burnett. What was the statement of Mr. Burnett that Mr. 
Bennet challenged ? 

Mr. Brooks. Do you want it read? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes. 

Mr. Hayes. He did not challenge it. 

Mr. Burnett. Oh, then, I do not care for it. 

Mr. Brooks. That is all I wish to submit. I thank you for your 
giving me permission to do so. 

STATEMENT OF A. A. ROE, REPRESENTING THE BROTHERHOOD 

OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCO¬ 
MOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN. 

Mr. Roe. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee: 

The Chairman. Mr. Roe. 

Mr. Roe. The question as to the advisability of further restricting 
foreign immigration, now under discussion, is one of increasing 
importance to the wage-earner of America. While the members of 
the railway brotherhoods are the least directly affected—I mean by 
that, that the position they fill in our industrial system is less likely 
to be filled by the foreign immigrant than the less skilled occupa¬ 
tions—we, as a part of society, however, are vitally concerned in the 
question before us; and indirectly competed with by the consequent 
increase of workers “ pushed up,” as they say, into the skilled groups 
by the strenuous competition and large numbers of unskilled below 
used to very low standards of living. Then, too, in recurrent times 
of depression the large number of unemployed unskilled makes it 
absolutely impossible for the skilled, who are first to be thrown out 
of employment and last to find employment with the return of pros¬ 
perity a few years later, to find unskilled employment enough to tide 
them over until employment' and business pick up. Such strong 
competition, even though indirect, does affect seriously wages and 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


243 


conditions of employment in the skilled trades, such as locomotive 
firemen and enginemen. 

I desire at this time to read from the proceedings of the Ninth 
Biennial Convention of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, held 
at Columbus, Ohio, in May, 1909. This convention was composed 
of 900 delegates, representing more than 100,000 railroad employees, 
actually engaged in the operation of railroad trains. The following 
resolution is similar to many others that have been passed by the 
railway brotherhoods in convention during the last eight or ten years: 

Whereas immigration to the United States and Canada is in such number and of 
such class as to cause grave apprehension as to its effect upon the living conditions of 
our wage earners, and as we know that the result is already noticeable in a social, 
financial, and moral way in every occupation affected by the flood of newcomers, we 
believe it eminently fitting that this convention go on record as opposed to present 
laws that permit this addition to our already overwhelming classes of inhabitants of 
this kind. The country has been fairly able to assimilate the immigrants that have 
come to us until within the past few years, but the continual procession of newcomers 
with their ideas of living and observance of law that are entirely foreign to our own 
and which have a tendency to lower the present standard of wages, morals, and social 
conditions have been more than we could well assimilate. The idea of filling the 
country with so many people that there are two men ready for every position threatens 
our positions and homes, and fully realizing that it is highly necessary that something 
must be done to bar out the undesirable, criminal, illiterate, and paupers which 
furnish the sweat shops and the congested districts with their victims and menace all 
labor, thereby encouraging and maintaining the padrone system and recruiting the 
criminal forces of our country; therefore, be it 

Resolved , That the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen use its best efforts to secure 
adequate laws to protect our homes and occupations from this invasion of undesirable 
immigration and ask for the enactment of a law that will effectually bar the pauper, 
the illiterate, the criminal, and the contract laborer from this country; and, be it 
further 

Resolved , That our position on this question be made known to the President of 
the United States and the Premier of Canada. 

Mr. Burnett. What is the date of that ? 

Mr. Roe. May, 1909. 

The demand for the restriction of foreign immigration can be justi¬ 
fied on the broad ground of self-defense. The questions of home pro¬ 
duction and home consumption are inseparable, and without a corre¬ 
sponding degree of the latter with the former production naturally 
must suffer, unless there is something of extra demand for outside 
markets to offset the failure of domestic consumption. This does not 
necessarily mean that each workman must consume the products he 
makes, but it means that he must purchase according to his means (of 
other products), so that in turn all demands will be stimulated by his 
necessities supplied by home markets. 

The new immigrant is a cheap liver; if he were not, he would not be 
an immigrant, for it takes dissatisfaction with home conditions to 
force a man to leave them. The living conditions of the bulk of our 
immigrants are far below our cheapest standard of living, and as long 
as the newcomer works with the idea of taking care of himself here 
and his relatives abroad and of saving sufficient money to enable him 
to return to his own country with enough to live comfortably, he can not 
raise his standard of living. In short, he does not spend the wages he 
makes, and therefore he is not a desirable workman from a compara¬ 
tive viewpoint of production and consumption. 

During the present discussion of the high cost of living we have 
heard the arm-chair philosopher tell us that the American workman 


244 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


lives too high; that he should economize, and so forth. This, in our 
opinion, is not good logic. The unprecedented progress we have 
made as a nation is largely owing to the fact that the American 
workman advances his standard of living in the exact proportion to 
the increased compensation he receives, and should the workmen 
of America attempt to follow the advice thus offered by these 
philosophers the result would be disastrous. To illustrate: Should 
the wage-earners of this country unite and resolve that on and after 
the first day of April, 1910, they will reduce their expenditures one- 
half, and carry the resolve into execution, the country would be 
thrown into an industrial depression in comparison with which all 
recent panics would sink into insignificance. Our present method of 
production and distribution makes it imperative that the wage- 
earner, who composes a large percentage of our entire population, 
consume all that his compensation will purchase, thereby increasing 
his efficiency, as well as living to do something else than merely work. 
Therefore, it can be readily understood that the immigrant, who is 
a cheap liver, is, in the present stage of our development, a menace 
to our society. Actual, bona fide investigation of the records of a 
large contracting company engaged in railroad construction and 
employing many laborers of various nationalities show that the 
actual cost to the company for groceries, provisions, and payment 
for cooks, waiters, fuel, lights, etc., at its boarding camps for a given 
period was 19 cents a meal, or $3.99 a week for each man. The men 
were charged $18 a month for board and lodging. 

The Italians at the camps of that company lived mostly on maca¬ 
roni, sausage, cheese, sardines, and bread. Macaroni and bread were 
the staples, the sausage, sardines, and cheese being used very spar¬ 
ingly. The average monthly expense of the Italian laborer was as 
follows: 


25 one-and-a-half pound loaves of bread, at 8 cents. $2. 00 

30 pounds of macaroni, at 7 cents. 2.10 

Sausage, sardines, and cheese. 1. 50 

Lard.,...30 


Total for food. 5. 90 


Mr. Burnett. For how long ? 

Mr. Roe. One month. 

Most of the Italians, in addition to the above, spent an average of 
$3 per month for beer, cheap cigars, or tobacco, which, with the 
expense of $1 per month for shanty rent, brings the total cost of 
living per man to $9.90 per month. 

Mr. Burnett. Do they not spend anything for laundry ? 

Mr. O’Connell. I know some Members of Congress that buy cheap 
cigars. 

Mr. Roe. An examination of the records of three railroad systems 
in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, for 1905 and 1906, 
gives accurate records of the earnings and the total cost of living of 
large numbers of Italian laborers employed on those railroads and 
living under the usual commissary system. The average earnings 
per man for a representative month in 1906, for 89 gangs, numbering 
1,530 men, were $37.07. The cost of all food was '$5.30 and of rent 
of shanty and sundries $1.49, or a total of $6.79, leaving a surplus of 
$30.28. 








HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 245 


of 34 men, for the above number, was as follows: 

B rea d.pounds.. 34.1 

Macaroni.do.... 19.3 

Rice.do.24 

Meat (sausage, corned beef, and cod).do_ 2. 31 

Sardines.do.4 

Beans, peas, and lentils.!.!do!!!! 2 . 06 

Cheese. . .do. ... 1. 00 

Fatback (lard substitute).do_ 6.13 

Tomatoes.cane*. ’ 2 .15 

Sugar.pounds.. 2.8 

Coffee.do.43 


Mr. Burnett. I will ask you there, where did you get those 
figures; from what report—commissary reports or books of the com¬ 
missaries where they work ? 

Mr. Roe. Yes. For these figures I am indebted to our official 
publication. 

Mr. Burnett. What I want to know is the source of the informa¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Roe. I think they originally came from the Bureau of Labor, 
and by actual investigation of these camps and companies engaged 
in railroad construction. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Who made the investigation, or under whose 
direction ? 

Mr. Roe. I am under the impression that they were made originally 
under the direction of the Department of Commerce and Labor (Bul¬ 
letin No. 72), and that is where we secured them. I am not positive 
of that, however, but I am quite sure you will find them m some 
official reports issued about that time bv the Department of Com¬ 
merce and Labor. 

Mr. O’Connell. If I may be permitted to ask a question, without 
interrupting you, I would like to know if your statistician has gathered 
any facts as to whether or not the health of these workmen was 
affected by their frugal manner of living. I rather think that 
frugality ought to be commended. I do not believe in frugality that 
is going to injure the health of the people. What I would like to 
know, and what I think is most important for us to know, is whether 
or not this frugal manner of living in any way injures their health or 
makes them inferior as citizens and as men. Have you got facts on 
that ? 

Mr. Roe. I have not any facts. 

Mr. Kustermann. They look pretty healthy. 

Mr. O’Connell. That is what I was coming to. 

Mr. Roe. I rather think, however, that such figures are in existence, 
and can, perhaps, be obtained. I understand the Immigration Com¬ 
mission found on the steamship Canopic, when it went abroad, large 
numbers of prematurely decrepit and broken-down aliens going back 
home. 

Mr. O’Connell. Until you get those kind of figures, it strikes me 
that these figures, generally speaking, are an argument the other way, 
because they are an indorsement of the frugality of these people. 

The Chairman. What Mr. Roe is trying to show is that the labor 
coming into this country now is detrimental to the labor of this 
country. 














246 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Roe. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that any man who will subsist 
on the provisions as quoted here, with our present standard of society, 
can not be an advantage to that society. 

Mr. Burnett. And no decent American laborer could live on it, 
could he ? 

Mr. Roe. He would not. 

Mr. Burnett. Well, he could not and maintain his family in 
decency. 

Mr. Roe. I feel this way, as I said a moment ago, that when any 
laborer coming to this country can save from an approximate amount 
of $38 the sum of $30.28 it has, among other things, a bearing, for 
instance, upon the home production and consumption which is 
detrimental to our present system. 

Mr. Kustermann. Don't you think they will learn to spend money 
after a while ? You know we are now trying to get the postal savings 
banks in order to teach people how to save. Now, you want them to 
spend all they earn. I suppose a good many of our workmen are 
doing that, and I believe that is to their own detriment. 

Mr. Roe. I agree with you that many of our own workmen spend 
all the wages they get, but I have just endeavored to show to you 
that it is necessary that they spend it. 

Mr. O'Connell. I would like to know why, if these men can get 
along in this way, it is necessary for our workmen to spend every¬ 
thing they earn. That is what I would like to have brought out. 

Mr. Roe. It would not be necessary, if you would like to see the 
American workman live under those conditions. 

Mr. O'Connell. I do not want the American workman to live in 
any other way than the manner that suits himself. 

Mr. Burnett. The American workman spends a little for washing 
and ironing once in a while, does he not ? 

Mr. Roe. The question is whether it is better or not for our society, 
for civilization, for the Government under which we live, to raise up 
a class of people who live in this manner. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Have you made an investigation as to what 
these men do with the surplus, the savings? Do they not, after 
having laid by what they consider to be a fair amount, go into busi¬ 
ness, especially small stores in the distant towns in the country, and 
do they not go into cities and establish a business with the savings 
of some years ? 

Mr. Roe. I believe that there are figures on that point which show 
that enormous sums are sent and carried back. I have read them, 
and I did not go to the trouble to submit them here, because I believed 
that with all the discussion that has taken place on this subject those 
figures were perhaps before the committee. 

Mr. Burnett. If you will permit me to answer that question, I 
will tell you that the report of the commission shows that $200,000,000 
go back every year to Europe; $75,000,000 by the Italians alone. 

Mr. Kustermann. We expect to keep that money here after we 
get our postal savings banks, when they have confidence in the insti¬ 
tution they deposit with. 

Mr. Burnett. They deposit it now, but draw it out and send it 
over there. 

Mr. Kustermann. No; they do not deposit it. They carry it 
around. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


247 


Mr. Burnett. Our investigation shows that in New York there 
are a lot of Italian savings banks, among which were some fake con¬ 
cerns, with whom they deposited their money, and they went and 
drew it out whenever they wanted to send it over. They sometimes 
deposit their money in the post-office. 

Mr. Sabath. That is the reason they send it home, because there 
are fake banks, and they have no confidence in them. In my own 
city alone, only a few weeks ago, as you may have read in the papers, 
there was one banker who got away with about $240,000 of these 
people’s money. 

Mr. Hayes. There are families in Italy who are supported entirely 
by the money sent over from this country. 

Mr. Sabath. Let the gentleman go on. 

Mr. Burnett. Let him answer my question. 

Mr. Roe. Right along that line, Mr. Chairman, from my own 
personal knowledge, after having spent the greater part of my life, 
since I was 17 years old, on the railroads of this country, and after 
having come in contact to a more or less extent with that class of 
laborers who are usually employed in the construction of railroads— 
in some parts of the country they are Greeks, and in other parts 
Italians, and in still other parts Mexicans—I know that a great 
number of them invest their money in post-office money orders. 
I have seen them carrying around large wads of these post-office 
money orders. 

Mr. Kustermann. Another argument for the savings bank, 

Mr. Roe. And I have been called on one or two occasions by the 
Mexicans—having some knowledge of their language—to assist 
them in making out post-office money orders to be sent to Mexico. 
So that I know from my own personal experience that a great deal 
of this is true, without appealing to any records or statistics. 

Mr. Kustermann. I would like to state that I know of a number 
of Germans who have lived here for a great many years, and still 
they send their money to the savings banks in the old country, 
because they have confidence in them and because they have lost 
their confidence in the banks here. We have had a failure in our 

E lace some thirty or forty years ago, and that shows that the banks 
ave not regained the confidence of these people. 

Mr. O’Connell. How can you blame a crowd of men of limited 
knowledge as to commercial matters, who live in a community 
such as Bridgeport is, where within the last two years they saw a 
bank president take four or five hundred thousand dollars away; 
or who, living in another community like Southbridge, Mass., see a 
trusted bank president get away with a couple of hundred 
thousand, or people living in a cultured city like Cambridge, 
Mass., seeing a bank clerk get away with $150,000 in a period of 
six months—how can you blame men of limited commercial knowl¬ 
edge from having doubt as to the security of our financial institu¬ 
tions ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. Let me call attention to the fact, also, of the de¬ 
falcations in our own subtreasury, where men walk away with some¬ 
thing like $173,000 in one day, $68,000 on another day, $75,000 on 
another day; and we have those instances recorded in the records of 
this House. 


248 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. O’Connell. I could multiply the instances that I have just 
mentioned probably one hundred fold, within the last twenty years. 

Mr. Hayes. Who is blaming them, Mr. O’Connell ? I blame our¬ 
selves for letting them' come here and take their money back to 
Europe. 

Mr. Sabath. Mr. O’Connell and Judge Goldfogle did not charge 
the Italians with getting away with this money. 

Mr. O’Connell. Not for a minute. 

Mr. Roe. Mr. Chairman, I might add that I am not trying to fix 
the blame upon anyone. I take the position here that it is a matter 
of self-defense; it is the first law of nature—self-preservation—that 
prompts us to come here and ask for a remedy. 

Mr. Sabath. Of course they do not compete with the American 
trainmen, do they ? 

Mr. Roe. Not directly. I do not know of one man that we term 
a foreigner, or an unnaturalized immigrant, employed in the capacity 
of trainman. But they do indirectly. 

Mr. Sabath. They must be able to speak the English language 
before they can be employed on a railroad ? 

Mr. Roe. Yes. 

Mr. O’Connell. Have you any knowledge of the trains of the 
Northeast ? 

Mr. Roe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. O’Connell. Do you mean to say that there are no naturalized 
citizens of this country working among the trainmen ? 

Mr. Hayes. He said there were no unnaturalized. 

Mr. O’Connell. I misunderstood you, then. What is the pro¬ 
portion of naturalized citizens among the members of the United 
Order of Trainmen ? 

Mr. Roe. I just made the statement that I do not know of any 
foreign unnaturalized citizen or aliens who can not speak English 
working as trainmen. 

Mr. O’Connell. I was asking how many are naturalized. 

Mr. Sabath. That would be hard to tell. 

Mr. Roe. The gentleman, as I understand, asks what per cent of 
the members of this organization are naturalized citizens. 

Mr. O’Connell. Yes. 

Mr. Roe. And I answer that I do not know that there is a solitary 
member that is not a native or naturalized citizen of the United States. 

Mr. Kustermann. In fact, you do not accept any aliens in your 
organization? 

Mr. O’Connell. You do not understand me. What I want to get 
at is this: How many members of your organization, who, having 
been born in foreign countries, have become naturalized citizens ? 

Mr. Roe. I have no figures on that question. 

Mr. O’Connell. Can you give me any notion; have you any idea? 

Mr. Roe. I could not; but if it is a matter of importance for the 
committee, I could get it by corresponding with our grand lodge, as 
all our members are compelled to pass examinations and take out 
insurance; and, consequently, those papers give the place and the 
date of the birth of each man, and so forth. So that it could be 
obtained very readily if the committee desires it. 

Mr. O’Connell. My object in asking that was to know whether or 
not the coming in of men from foreign countries, who subsequently 


249 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


become naturalized and who have joined your organization, has in 
any way tended to keep down the effort of the organization to get 
higher wages and shorter hours, or whether it has elevated your 
organization and helped along those very purposes. 

Mr. Roe. I would say that they have not directly affected our 
organization. 

Mr. O’Connell. How can you say that when you do not know ? 
You just answered a minute ago that you did not know what those 
figures were. 

Mr. Roe. You mean figures relating to those men coming into this 
country and becoming naturalized ? 

Mr. O’Connell. Yes; whether that type of men has elevated or 
injured you in your purpose. 

Mr. Roe. I had reference to immigrants who came in and were not 
naturalized. 

Mr. O’Connell. I am not talking about that; I am asking you 
about the qualifications that you lay down there, that a man must be 
a naturalized citizen before he becomes a member of your organization. 

Mr. Roe. Well, that is, of course, a difficult problem; and as I said 
before, I could not answer off-hand. 

Mr. O’Connell. It seems to be rather an important one, because 
if these men help you, you can encourage them, and if they hurt you 
you ought to be in a position to tell us just how they hurt. 

Mr. Roe. I can answer that question, I believe, to your satisfaction 
by saying this: That I take the position that immigration is filling 
the country so full of men that we are not able to assimilate them, 
not able to furnish them employment, and while it does not affect us 
directly as an organization, we would be affected by a continuance 
of that system by the lowering of the standard of living. It does 
affect us indirectly. It would be a step backward, rather than for¬ 
ward, as I regard it. 

Mr. Kustermann. I had a letter from New York, from the immigra¬ 
tion commissioner, saying that they could take care of 2,000,000 
immigrants in that State alone, to be used on the farms there. 

Mr. Burnett. Why do they not get them there ? 

Mr. Kustermann. They are taking them just as fast as they can 
induce them to come. 

Mr. Hayes. Why don’t they come there? 

Mr. Sabath. I really believe we ought to give Mr. Roe a chance. 
Time is passing; it is 25 minutes to 12. 

Mr. Roe. As I have said the matter of restricting foreign immi¬ 
gration is a matter of self-defense. One of the most, if not the most, 
important problem confronting America to-day is the unemployed 
problem, ebbing and flowing more or less with the industrial condi¬ 
tions, and certainly intensified by free immigration of a lower stand¬ 
ard of living. 

Mr. O’Connell. I think this observation ought to be made at this 
point: The State of Massachusetts established an employment bu¬ 
reau for the unemployed a few years ago, at the time of the panic 
and depression, and a number of applications came in. Of course, 
everyone knows that depression and panic was an artificial one, 
brought about by means that should never have been employed. 
Within the last twelve months, the people connected with that enter- 


250 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


prise have notified me that they would like me to send them as many 
men as I possibly could, if I came across them, because there were 
places where they could be put to work, and they could not fill the 
positions. That is the experience of Massachusetts, one of the most 
densely populated States in the Union. 

Mr. Roe. Right there I might observe that within the last six 
months our organization has found it necessary to establish an 
employment agency or a distributing point in Chicago, because we 
had such an enormous number of men out of employment and 
seeking work. As I understand, the Massachusetts Employment 
Agency was established and extended in 1906-1908 as a result of the 
large number of unemployed. 

Mr. Sabath. Men or what class ? 

Mr. Roe. Railroad trainmen and conductors. And I rather re¬ 
gard that class as a very good illustration of the conditions—a 
barometer, if you please. 

Mr. Kustermann. Right there. You say you have so many 
unemployed. When I left my place in Wisconsin I happened to 
meet the superintendent of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad, 
and I said, “How is it; have you any trouble to find men?” “Why,” 
he says, “I have just now received an order for 20 or 24 brakemen 
who are wanted at another point on the Chicago and Northwestern, 
and I am unable to fill it.” 

Mr. Roe. Well, I can probably explain that. 

Mr. Kustermann. Do not let me interrupt you any further. 

Mr. Roe. You will find that there was trouble up there with the 
Northwestern about that time with its switchmen, and they were 
looking for strike breakers then. 

Mr. Kustermann. Oh, no. 

Mr. Roe. And you will probably find that in a great many cases 
where there is a great deal of agitation and advertisement for men 
there is some controversy between the organized workmen and the 
employers. 

Mr. O’Connell. Let me ask this question. I do not like to inter¬ 
rupt you- 

The Chairman. I would like to have Mr. Roe finish his statement. 

Mr. O’Connell. I think this question ought to be asked here. 

Mr. Hayes. Ask it when he gets through. 

Mr. Roe. In times gone by we, as Americans, have fondly believed 
that this was an European problem, and it was only recently that it 
has begun to dawn upon the American public that we, too, have this 
problem to solve. This is manifested m the bread lines, the abject 
poverty and squalor that is so apparent in all of our great industrial 
centers. 

There is a demand for cheaper labor that will work at a less wage 
in every country—in the very countries from which the very cheapest 
labor comes to this country. 

We believe that we ought to get at the bottom, if we can locate it, 
by reducing the number of competitors for jobs; that is, by restricting 
immigration. We can not inject any sentiment into tins argument. 
To my mind it is not a question to be based wholly on the fact as to 
whether or not the Itahan, the Slav, the Hungarian, or the Greek 
possesses certain qualifications, but of the first law of nature—self- 
preservation. You have heard the representative of the Farmers’ 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


251 


Union, representing 3,000,000 farmers, emphatically state that there 
is no scarcity of labor in that industry. You have heard the repre¬ 
sentatives of the various trades unions state that large numbers of 
their members are constantly out of employment. We desire to 
remedy this condition by the restriction of foreign immigration. 

We ought to get under this wage and unemployed problems just 
as we ought to get in under the financial system that now permits a 
few crazed speculators to plunge this country into financial depression 
over night, in spite of the fact that the mines, fields, and factories, 
natural and artificial resources, and human intelligence remain intact 
and are more promising than ever. With the proper restriction of 
foreign immigration, if the natural business of this country were 
permitted to go on unhampered by those who shrink behind special- 
privilege laws, there would be no story of unemployed; there would 
be no bread line in which honest men hide their faces and seek the 
shadow when they grab the chunk of bread and tin cup of coffee for 
fear some one they know may see them. 

There would be no half-starved children, as pictured in the dailies 
of Chicago and New York, with their emaciated bodies and diseased 
systems crowding our public schools; society demands protection, 
and it must be remembered that it can only get as much of it as it 
gives. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the discussion that has taken place while I was 
making my statement has brought out one of the important points 
that I wanted to impress upon you, and that is the fact that we 
desire to restrict foreign immigration, because we believe that it is 
necessary in order to preserve our present standard of living. We 
believe that any system which builds up around a manufacturing 
industry a protection from foreign competition and leaves the 
American workingman free and compels him to compete with cheap 
European labor, is unfair and unjust. It is a travesty upon justice 
to impose heavy protective duties upon the products of foreign labor 
and allow the foreign pauper labor itself to come in free. 

There is another point here that it might be well to dwell on a little 
further, and that is the question which was brought up here by Mr. 
O’Connell. I have here a clipping from the New York Times of 
Sunday, Februar}^ 27, 1909, which states that J. C. Earl, financial 
secretary of the Bowery Mission, who is also in charge of the work of 
the Free Labor Bureau, conducted by the mission, said that he wrote 
to the governors as follows: 

During 1908 I wrote the governor of every State in the Union, offering to supply 
help if he would send the addresses of farmers who wanted hands. From these letters 
I did not get a single reply showing that there was any great demand for farm hands. 

Mr. Sabath. Well, the governors are not supposed to be employed 
in the line of procuring help. That is not their duty, to procure help 
for farmers. 

Mr. Roe. I will include that entire clipping in the record. 

Mr. Burnett. I think the governors would have a greater interest 
in that than a Member of Congress would. 

Mr. Sabath. No; a Member of Congress is always close to his 
people. 

Mr. Roe. A good many people are apt to consider themselves 
better than some other nationality. It is a matter of opinion, and, 
for my part, I am not discussing this subject with any such narrow 


252 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


view of the situation. I am not prepared to say that the Italian 
or the Slav or the Hungarian or the Mexican has not the natural 
attributes that go to make up good citizenship, in spite of all you 
read about the Mafia, Black Hand, etc. I would not say that. 
But, as stated repeatedly, it is not a question of whether or not 
they possess those qualities. Of course the offensiveness could be 
gotten around by saying they are different from us. But I will not 
say even that. It is a question of whether of not, I will say, we 
can use them; whether or not by bringing a foreigner into this coun¬ 
try he is not replacing or ruinously competing with some one who 
is already here, who has fixed his residence here, and who has pos¬ 
sibly become a citizen of this country. I think justice as well as 
charity begins at home, and I think those facts will bear me out in 
the statement that, under present conditions, we are not able to 
assimilate the great hordes that are annually coming to our shores 
and settling principally in the large industrial and labor centers of 
the Northeast. 

I believe that the members of this committee in the consideration 
of this subject have a very grave responsibility. I take it that the 
subject of restricting foreign immigration will have an effect upon 
our present industrial conditions to a greater extent perhaps than 
you would think at first glance. For instance, take the trouble in 
Pennsylvania. Take these disturbances that are constantly arising 
in strikes, and they are deplorable, but how can we avoid them ? 
The question has often been asked: “What is a starving man to do 
if he is out of employment and can not secure employment ? ” And 
it is a hard question to answer. So, I ask, What is the labor element 
to do? We can see destruction plainly ahead of us unless certain 
conditions can be changed. I ask, What are they to do ? Are they 
to stand by and allow conditions to grow from bad to worse, or must 
they at some time take a stand which, naturally, results in these 
disturbances that we all regret so much ? 

Mr. Sabath. Will you permit me to ask you a question now ? 

Mr. O’Connell. I would rather that the gentleman would finish. 

Mr. Sabath. Oh, I thought he was through now. I thought you 
had closed. 

Mr. Roe. That has a bearing upon this subject. 

The American workman—and when I say the American workman, 
I mean every wage-earner in America to-day—whether he is a native, 
has been naturalized or not. He is here, and he has to contend with 
this foreign labor, often brought for a purpose, or deluded and in¬ 
veigled into coming. We can not take these American laborers 
that are here and push them all back in the standard of living as 
brought out here this morning, to the level of the Greek or the Italian. 
We can not do that, and when we attempt to do that, we bring on 
civil war—nothing short of it. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You do not take these figures seriously, do you, 
as to the cost of living of these Italians ? 

Mr. Roe. Oh, indeed. They are indisputable facts, from official 
sources. I have observed them, and I know they are quite true. 

Mr. Hayes. I can give you figures showing a lower cost of living 
than that. 

Mr. O’Connell. Yes; and I can give them to you a great deal 
higher. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


258 


Mr. Roe. In answer to Mr. Goldf ogle’s question, I will say that I 
have seen them time and again along railroads where they were 
working, eking out just such an existence—baking their bread in 
the holes in the ground. They roll up the dough and add a little 
flour and water to it, and then put the whole in the side of the cut. 
Then they put a lot of wood in there and make a fire and bake their 
bread. They live on a very little, saving every possible cent to send 
or take back as a rule. 

Mr. Kustermann. That is a fine bread, too. 

Mr. Roe. I am not questioning that, but I am talking about the 
cheapness of it, their ruinously low standard of living. 

Mr. O’Connell. Why should he not do that ? 

Mr. Roe. There is no objection in the world to that. I was not 
objecting to his eating the bread, but the cheapness of it—his low 
standard of living. 

Mr. O’Connell. Why do you urge that as an argument? 

Mr. Roe. Because I do not want to see the people of this country, 
the wage-earners of this country, compelled to live in that manner— 
subjected to that ruinous cutthroat competition of cheap labor and 
low standards. 

Mr. O’Connell. He is not compelled, is he ? 

Mr. Roe. He'will be if these conditions continue-- 

Mr. Sabath. The American laboring man who works on the raib 
road alongside of these men lives in about the same way as these 
men do, does he not ? 

Mr. Roe. Well, I don’t recall any such case to mind in recent 
years. He is being driven out because he can not compete—because 
he will not come down to those terms. 

Mr. Sabath. But the fact that these foreign laborers come here 
and do the hard work is instrumental in procuring a higher position 
for the American laboring man; is not that true ? 

Mr. Roe. I would not say that. They are instrumental in forcing 
the American laboring man out of the employment that he once had, 
and subject him to an unfair competition when the Government 
protects the manufacturer in his products and gives him free trade 
in his labor. 

Mr. Sabath. They are instrumental in forcing him out of a dollar- 
thirty-five position into a tw T o-dollar-and-a-half and three-dollar 
position ? 

Mr. Roe. I would not say that was the whole story. I wo Id say 
they are also instrumental in forcing him out of that occupation, and 
then it is up to the American to secure his employment somewhere 
else or do without. He has to come down to that level, seek another 
level, or walk the streets as many do. 

Mr. Burnett. And a great many of them do without because of 
that very fact. 

Mr. Roe. Yes. 

Mr. O’Connell. Oh, I do not believe that is so. 

Mr. Hayes. I know it. 

Mr. O’Connell. I do not know whether you do or not, Brother 
Hayes. 

Mr. Hayes. I do know it, Mr. O’Connell. 

Mr. Sabath. There is a certain percentage of men in this country, 
as well as abroad, that will not work. 



254 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Hayes. You say so. 

Mr. Sabath. Well, we know that. 

Mr. Hayes. I do not. 

Mr. O’Connell. Political economy admits that condition all over 
the world. 

Mr. Goldfogle. There are drones in every hive. 

Mr. Roe. That, I think, is conceded; but we are discussing this 
subject on the broad proposition of the whole people. Unrestricted 
foreign immigration greatly increases the number. I am frank to 
say that I believe that every foreign workman who comes into this 
country takes the place of some American workingman, who wants 
higher wages and a higher standard of living than the foreigner, and 
the foreigner only takes the position because he is enabled to live 
cheaper. He has got to outbid, or rather underbid, him as a rule to 
get the job. Consequently, a lower standard of living forces some 
one either to recruit the ranks of the tramps, the Coxey’s armies, or 
the ranks of the criminal and insane, if he is not so fortunate as to 
get some position whereby he can live. 

Mr. Kustermann. You say that these immigrants coming in here 
are a detriment to the people working here—the railroad man, we will 
say, for instance. Now, then, these roads—for instance, the Chicago 
and Northwestern, the St. Paul, and other roads up our way—are 
always extending their lines. How could they accomplish that work 
without employing these men, and if they do extend their lines are 
not your railroad men directly benefited by the extension of these 
lines, because that permits them to run more trains, which creates 
.more work ? It is just because those immigrants, those Italians, do 
that work of extending those lines through the different sections of 
the country that your men have more opportunity to work than they 
would have otherwise. I would like to know whether that is not a 
fact. I want to have things clear. 

Mr. Roe. I would say yes in answer to that question, and speak 
from observation and experience. 

Figures have been submitted from time to time from various sources 
showing the minimum amount upon which a workingman can live and 
support his family. I believe those figures run from $600 to $800 
per year. 

I say to you frankly that whenever employers of manual labor 
desire to pay, and will pay, that amount they will have no difficulty 
in getting laboring men of all nationalities to perform that service who 
are now living in this country; and I believe that if an advertisement 
is inserted in the papers in any city that will say, “We will give a 
competent laborer $2 per day”—which would make approximately 
between five hundred and six hundred dollars per year—that for every 
1,000 inhabitants he will get an answer. Americans performed all 
such labor before this present stream of cheap labor was started. 

Mr. Kustermann. You will have to draw them away from another 
occupation, Mr. Roe. 

Mr. Burnett. Yes; draw them away from the ranks of the un¬ 
employed. 

Mr. Kustermann. Oh, there is not any such. 

Mr. Burnett. Two millions. 

Mr. Roe. I have lived for some years in the great wheat belt of 
Kansas, and at certain times of the year we can read in the papers 
advertising the fact, or the supposed fact, that the farmers in that 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


255 


part of the country are needing help very badly. Consequently, our 
freight trains are flooded with men coming down there looking for 
employment. At the same time we find certain advertisements in 
the papers calling for men in the iron-ore industries, and I suppose 
the conditions are the same there. From my own personal knowledge 
and observation in the western country, where they are certainly as 
prosperous as in any other part of the United States, we have' the 
unemployed problem constantly to contend with. 

Mr. Kustermann. In what State is that? 

Mr. Roe. The Western States, west of the Mississippi River. 

Mr. Kustermann. I wish you would let me know just where they 
are so that I can get some of those people. 

Mr. Burnett. You will find them in Milwaukee. 

Mr. Sabath. You were not applying that to your organization or the 
labor people whom you represent ? 

Mr. Roe. They are only detrimental to our organization in their 
consequences. Indirectly they compete. It is the condition their 
coming creates that affects us all. 

Mr. Sabath. Is not your union stronger to-day and has it not a 
larger membership than it ever had before ? 

Mr. Roe. Yes, sir. It has to be; it has to have. 

Mr. Sabath. Do they not receive now—and, mind you, I do not 
say they are receiving enough—but do they not receive to-day, not¬ 
withstanding that we have had a large immigration for the last ten 
years, just as high wages as they ever received before? Mind you, 
they are not even receiving enough now, because the price of living 
is so high. I believe they should receive at least 20 per cent more, 
but notwithstanding the fact of this large immigration they do 
receive to-day just as high wages as they ever did. 

Mr. Roe. That is a fact; yes, sir. The money wage is greater. 

Mr. Sabath. In what way, then, have you been damaged or hurt? 

Mr. Roe. Just to the extent that we are members of society ; just 
to that extent exactly we are affected by the unemployed problem; 
just to the extent that prices of food, clothing, and the number of 
good things of life have increased, and that is much more. Not 
because there are a great number in our organization that are unem¬ 
ployed, I will say, for the sake of argument, but because we would 
be unable to maintain our organization for sixty days were we the 
only organization. 

Mr. Sabath. I think your organization is doing a great deal of good 
for the laboring men of our country, and I would like to see all laboring 
men organized and have such good leaders. 

Mr. Roe. Consequently, when the foreigner comes to this country, 
he tends to supplant a man who is a member of an organization, and 
all organizations are weakened to that extent. That is an idea to be 
considered also. 

Mr. Sabath. Don’t you know that we are employing more men 
from day to day, and we are increasing our business and constructing 
more railroads, and need more men to operate the railroads ? 

Mr. Roe. The last report of the Interstate Commerce Commission 
does not say so. It shows a reduction of 217,000. 

Mr. Sabath. That was during the Republican panic that we had. 

Mr. O’Connell. Have not the labor organizations grown stronger 
each year during the last fifteen years ? 

Mr. Roe. Decidedly. They have had to. 


256 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. O’Connell. Does not that dispose of your other argument 
that the influx of immigration has weakened your organizations, or 
that it tends to weaken them ? How are you going to reconcile those 
two facts, that the influx of immigration tends to weaken your organi¬ 
zation when, as a matter of fact, the organization has grown stronger 
along with the increase of immigration ? 

Mr. Roe. I would like to answer that question, and I will answer 
it this way: That these organizations sprung into existence not by a 
condition of prosperity; it was an adverse condition that brought 
them into existence. 

Mr. O’Connell. That was long before this great flood of immigra¬ 
tion started ? 

Mr. Roe. The flood of immigration displacing other men and tend¬ 
ing to reduce the wages of the workingmen makes them go into organi¬ 
zations to protect themselves. 

Mr. Burnett. It made it more necessary. 

Mr. O’Connell. Yes; and they have grown stronger, and they 
have gotten better conditions as a result of it. Is it not true that the 
condition of the workingman to-day, of both organized labor and 
unorganized labor, is better than it was ten years ago, particularly the 
conditions as to organized labor? 

Mr. Roe. Yes. 

Mr. O’Connell. And if that is so, how can you attribute the con¬ 
dition of the organized workingman to-day to the flood of immi¬ 
gration ? 

Mr. Roe. Just as I have explained. They have come in freely— 
been brought in to prevent us getting better conditions and even to 
lower wages and increase hours. 

Mr. O’Connell. But your condition is better, is it not? 

Mr. Roe. I will show you why it is better. 

Mr. O’Connell. Well, it is better, as a matter of fact ? 

Mr. Burnett. Is it better in proportion to the increased rate of 
living ? The rate of living has increased 60 per cent and wages have 
increased only 20 per cent. 

The Chairman. Let the gentleman finish; it is nearly 12 o’clock. 

Mr. O’Connell. He has finished. 

Mr. Roe. Now, I want to be plain on that question. 

Mr. O’Connell. I want to have the whole truth. 

Mr. Roe. I take this position, without any hesitancy at all, that 
as I see it, the influx displaces the workman of this country, the wage- 
earner, and causes a competition for his position, increases the num¬ 
ber of applicants for work. This brought into existence the organ¬ 
izations, drove men together. They had to get into the organiza¬ 
tions to give them power to maintain their position, to save the com¬ 
forts of their homes, and if you say that is a good thing, well and 
good. 

Mr. Sabath. It is a good condition; organization is a good condi¬ 
tion, and if they are responsible for any improvements in the condi¬ 
tion of the workingmen, then they are entitled to thanks. 

Mr. Roe. A better condition would be one that would not require 
the organization; would not make the organization necessary. A 
better condition would be one where hours, conditions of employment, 
and wages were such that organization of labor for these purposes 
was unnecessary. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


257 


Mr. Gold fogle. Would you not rather have an organized body of 
men, enabled through power of organization, through force of num¬ 
bers, through the influence that organization always brings, to secure 
better conditions and the correction of evils? 

Mr. IIoe. Oh, yes; that is better. It is good for educational and 
social purposes, of course. But I say there is a condition due to 
unrestricted foreign immigration largely whereby the organization 
would not be necessary. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, 12 o’clock having arrived, we will 
stand adjourned until to-morrow until half-past 10. Mr. Bennet 
wants to be heard to-morrow. 

(Thereupon, at 12 o’clock m., the committee adjourned until 
Thursday, March 10, 1910, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.) 


I have here a newspaper clipping from the New York Times of Feb¬ 
ruary 27, 1909, which would seem to be of interest and throw later 
light than the symposium of letters submitted by the Board of Trade 
of New York City upon the entire subject covered by those letters 
and particularly upon the answers claimed to have been received, 
from the governor of Nebraska, and numbered 50. I should like 
very much if the committee would have this clipping incorporated 
as a part of my statement: 

[The New York Times, Saturday, February 27, 1909.] 

Says Western Jobs on Farms are Myths. 

BOWERY MISSION MAKES A TEST OF A DEMAND FROM NEBRASKA FOR 1,000 MEN— 

TOLD ALL PLACES ARE FILLED—THE BREAD LINE DIMINISHING, BUT SECRETARY 

EARL ESTIMATES THERE ARE STILL 150,000 IDLE MEN IN THE CITY". 

‘‘In an effort just made to place a number of the unemployed men in the Bowery 
Mission bread lines on farms in Nebraska and the West I find that there is a vast 
difference of opinion between the newspapers, state officials, and farmers of the West 
as to the need of more help from the East,” said John C. Earl, financial secretary of 
the Bowery Mission, who is also in charge of the work of the free labor bureau con¬ 
ducted by the mission, to a Times reporter yesterday. 

“On February 10 there appeared in two papers published in Omaha, Nebr., stories 
with flaring headlines telling of the crying need of farmers for help,” continued 
Mr. Earl. “These stories were based on an interview with Deputy Commissioner 
of Agriculture W. M. Maupin, of Nebraska, in which he said he knew of cases enough 
to give employment to 1,000 men from the East if they could be obtained. In the 
course of his interview Mr. Maupin gave the names of 25 farmers, who, he said, he 
knew to need from 5 to 20 men each. 

“A few days after this story appeared in the papers I received a communication 
from A. W. Frick, of Fentonville, Nebr., in which he inclosed the clippings from both 
of the papers, and said that if the people of New York who were running the Bowery 
Mission bread line wanted to they could place a number of men on these Nebraska 
farms, where help was so badly needed. Mr. Frick intimated, as has been done by 
lecturers and certain newspaper writers, that the Bowery Mission bread line was 
composed of a lot of drunken loafers who did not want to work, but were satisfied to 
remain in New York for the bread and coffee daily. 

“I immediately wrote Mr. Frick and asked him to send me the addresses of any 
farmers who wanted help. I wrote the two newspapers, asking for the same informa¬ 
tion, and sent a similar letter to Deputy Commissioner Maupin. Then I wrote to 
each of the farmers whose names and addresses Mr. Maupin had given. In reply the 
newspapers say they have no addresses, Mr. Frick says that since writing all of the 
farmers have been supplied with the help they need, and Mr. Maupin replies that 
there was all the help needed in the State just now. This he says, despite the fact 


49090—10-17 




258 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


that he asserted two weeks ago that the farmers were in need of help and that 1,000 
men could be placed. The farmers said they were supplied. 

“This is a trouble we are constantly having. Newspapers print stories that help is 
badly needed in certain sections of the country. We offer to furnish honest, indus¬ 
trious, sober men who are willing to take any kind of work, since they have been 
out of employment for months, and then we find that the work is not there. 

“During the past twelve months the free labor bureau of the Bowery Mission has 
sent out 3,500 men to farmers, and from reports we have received less than one-half 
of 1 per cent of the men failed to arrive at their destination and the greater part of 
them have given satisfaction. Of course there have been some complaints of the 
men sent, but these complaints are based entirely on the inability of the men to do 
certain technical parts of the farm work, such as milking a cow or operating a mowing 
machine immediately upon their arrival. 

• 4 In addition to this a very large proportion of these men have of their own accord 
written us of their safe arrival and of their satisfaction at the place we found for them. 
This we regard as very gratifying, for the temptation to the men if they were not 
honest in their purpose would prove very great. We require the farmers to send the 
price of transportation. Then we give the men a ticket to their destination and 
money with which to buy their meals en route.” 

Mr. Earl said that there were now in this city 150,000 men out of work and that a 
large number of these are being assisted by their families or friends. He said that 
the Bowery Mission bread line had fallen off considerably and that it now averages 
about 2,000 men per night. 

“Most of these men are willing to go to work if we can find places for them, and they 
are being sent out of the city to farms in the nearby States as fast as applications are 
made for them,” said Mr. Earl. “Of course, we have applications for help that we 
can not fill,” he continued. “Some farmers write us for practical farm hands who 
must be able to do any kind of farm work. Now, on the bread line there are mechanics 
of all kinds, some clerks, some drug clerks, others who have never been outside of a 
city to work. Of course they can not do the work offered them, so we are called down 
for offering help and then not furnishing it. The only thing we offer to do is to furnish 
help to farmers in the shape of men who are willing to make a try at any work given 
them. We have thousands of letters from farmers to whom we have sent help thanking 
us for having done so, but the continued ‘knocking’ of the bread line by certain 
charity workers on the lecture platform is hurting our work, for the farmers think we 
can only send them a lot of drunken, worthless bums, which is not the case. 

“During 1908 I wrote the governor of every State in the Union, offering to supply 
help if he would send the addresses of farmers who wanted hands. From these letters 
I did not get a single reply showing that there was any great demand for farm hands.” 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Thursday, March 10, 1910. 

The committee this day met, with Hon. William S. Bennet in the 
chair. Others present were Representatives Burnett, Moore, of 
Texas, Kustermann, Hayes, Elvins, Johnson, Goldfogle, and Moore, of 
Pennsylvania. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. BENNET, A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

Mr. Bennet. I desire first of all to address myself to the question 
of where we are getting and from where we may expect future immi¬ 
gration. The immigration from the Scandinavian countries is no 
longer one of our sources and, as a matter of fact, both Sweden and 
Norway are attempting to get back to their own countries the peoples 
who have emigrated to this country from there. 

Mr. Hayes. Is it not true that the wages paid to labor there are 
nearly as large, if not quite as large, as they are here ? 

Mr. Bennet. Wages have very generally increased. That is not 
only true of Norway and Sweden, but is also true of Denmark, 
another Scandinavian country, which in the last seventy-five years 
have become prosperous almost entirely through agriculture, and 
therefore with the industrial conditions as they are in those countries 
there is no reason to believe that the large immigration which we 
had from those countries some years since will be resumed. So 
far as emigrating populations are concerned, they can be considered 
as denuded, although their percentage of population to the square 
mile is of course very much larger than ours. There is and will be 
emigration from Finland which arises because of the governmental 
conditions in Russia. The conditions in Germany are similar to 
those that I have described in the Scandinavian countries. There has 
been a great revival in the agricultural industry in Germany, and in 
addition the German Government by statute and by the adminis¬ 
tration of statute discourages the emigration of its people to any 
except German colonies. The emigration from Germany now con¬ 
sists almost entirely of two classes, those who have been left behind 
as members of a family from previous emigration and some farmers 
who are taking up land in the Middle West, the immigration being 
about 30,000 a year. 

Mr. Burnett. In 1909 was it not 58,534? 

Mr. Bennet. Those are the correct figures; you have them before 
you. Not an immigration large enough to consider in connection 
with restrictive measures, although one that would be particularly 
burdened by an increased head tax. 


259 



260 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Hayes. Is it not likely that we will have quite a large immigra¬ 
tion, larger than for some years, from Great Britain owing to the 
industrial conditions there ? 

Mr. Bennet. I am very frank to say it has been a source of wonder 
to me that we have not had a larger immigration from Great Britain 
on account of the industrial conditions, but we have not had it, and 
with Canada making efforts to get English-speaking people for her 
immigrants, if immigration starts up from there, why, the govern¬ 
ments of England and Canada together will use their efforts and be 
very much more successful in directing it toward the channels of 
the new lands in Canada. There does not seem to have been a large 
industrial emigration from Great Britain, and England has not 
been one of our immigrant feeders in the past, and with every incen¬ 
tive at the present through industrial crises there the emigration 
does not seem to start. 

Mr. Hayes. Are you stating that quite right ? Of course, Great 
Britain has not been one of the very largest sources of our immigra¬ 
tion, but is it not true that we have had a pretty steady flow from 
there for a number of years until recently ? 

Mr. Bennet. We have had a steady flow of some thousands. 
What were the figures last year, Mr. Burnett ? 

Mr. Burnett. Thirty-nine thousand and twenty-one. 

Mr. Hayes. I am speaking of Scotland and Wales combined with 
England. 

Mr. Burnett. Scotland 16,446, and Wales 1,699. 

Mr. Hayes. That makes considerably over 50,000. 

Mr. Bennet. But not to be compared with the streams that used 
to come from Germany and Ireland and now from Russia, Italy, and 
Austria. Then, I think, in connection with that, so far as what you 
might call the emigrating classes are concerned, that the passage of 
the new laws in Great Britain providing for old-age pensions, which 
take away the fear of starvation or the poorhouse in old age, will 
tend to keep the British subject in his own islands. 

Mr. Kustermann. And the same is true with Germany ? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir; the industrial compensation laws in Ger¬ 
many, and there is no doubt at all that those laws will play a great 
part in emigration. When a man knows that in his own country 
when he reaches the years when he can not labor he will be taken 
care of, and taken care of outside of a poorhouse, and in a way that 
the law recognizes he has earned, he is more apt to stay in his own 
country. 

Now, in addition to that, considering this question in connection 
with the restrictive measures, I have never understood that there 
was any desire to restrict the immigration of able-bodied English¬ 
men, or Scotchmen, or Welshmen. 

Mr. Burnett. Or Irishmen ? 

Mr. Bennet. They were not embraced. 

Mr. Hayes. Or any of the Scandinavian countries ? 

Mr. Bennet. I have always understood that the restrictive meas¬ 
ures were at least intended to be applied most strongly against the 
southern peoples and against the Jews that come from Russia and 
Roumania. 

Mr. Burnett. Not the Jews especially, but all the eastern Euro¬ 
peans, except the Finnish. Those people in northern Europe are 
white people and good people. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


261 


Mr. Bennet. ITow many Russians came in last year? 

Mr. Burnett. Russians, 10,083, and Ruthenian Russians, 15,808, 
making about 26,000 in all. 

Mr. Bennet. Taking the immigrant and nonimmigrant both, there 
is practically no emigration from Russia of the Slavic or Tartar people. 
The emigration from Russia, which is a large emigration, is of the 
Jews and from the Baltic provinces and Finland, from the revolu¬ 
tionists who come to this country on account of government con¬ 
ditions. 

Mr. Burnett. The Polish are not largely Jews ? 

Mr. Bennet. No, sir. A good many come from Poland. 

Mr. Burnett. Seventy-seven thousand five hundred and sixty-five. 

Mr. Bennet. The Poles come from Austria, Russia, and Germany— 
three countries. 

Mr. Hayes. They are a very high class of immigrants ? 

Mr. Bennet. No better than the emigrants from Finland. 

Mr. Hayes. They have had experience in self-government ? 

Mr. Bennet. The Finns would not be coming at all now if it were 
not for the fact that the Russian Government has obliterated their 
form of government, putting them on the same level as the ex-serfs 
of Russia. Therefore they come within our ancient and well-estab¬ 
lished rule of welcoming people who are fleeing from oppression. 

I did not quite finish my statement in regard to Germany. Instead 
of Germany being a country from which immigrants come, it is a 
country to which they now go, not permanent, but temporary immi¬ 
grants. The Germans have advanced very far in agriculture and 
for the character of their holdings and the character of their soil are 
probably ahead of any other people in the world. They have taken 
so many men from agriculture into industry that when it comes to 
gathering their crops they have not the men in Germany to-day to 
gather their crops, and so the northern Italian comes up over the 
southern border of Germany and harvests the crops in southern 
Germany and the Pole comes over from Poland—Russia—to harvest 
the crops in that portion of Germany nearest to Russia. 

Mr. Burnett. And as soon as they get through they go back 
home ? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir. He is only there temporarily and goes back 
for the winter, but he is there during the harvesting season. So 
great has been the combined strain of America and Germany during 
the harvest season, on , Poland, that when I was in Poland in 1907 
the large landed proprietors were attempting to map out a scheme by 
which they could bring over the Trans-Siberian Railway coolies from 
China to harvest their wheat, keep them during the harvest time, 
pay them a mere pittance, and then send them back over the Trans- 
Siberian Railway after the harvesting was over. They said they could 
do it and harvest their crops at a price to make both ends meet. The 
reason that they can not pay their own people a higher price for har¬ 
vesting the crops is that, being in Russia and under the Russian laws 
and having a Russian market originally, they have to compete, so far 
as the growing of wheat is concerned, with the wheat grown by the 
serfs all over Russia, who are practically attached to the soil, although 
they have been freed nominally some twenty-five or thirty years—in 
1882,1 think. So German immigration on a large scale is practically 
a thing of the past. Then, of course, you must remember that at 


262 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


the time of the very large German immigration they were having 
their political and revolutionary troubles. When men like Carl 
Schurz came to this country, they came as refugees—men of 1848. 
Of course that is all over, and they now have a peaceful, happy, and 
united country. 

Now, the Russian immigration, in my judgment, is due practically 
entirely to governmental conditions. I never realized how much 
difference government can make until I traveled through Russia. 

Mr. Hayes. Go to Mexico and you will see the same thing just 
across the river. 

Mr. Bennet. I do not want to quote from Mr. Burnett’s report on 
Germany. 

Mr. Burnett. I am perfectly willing. 

Mr. Bennet. Then I will quote in substance the report made by 
Mr. Burnett, Mr. Latimer, and Mr. Howell as to the reason why this 
immigration has ceased. I have the report here, and if it is desired I 
can put the exact language in the record. We do not idealize in this 
country exactly what the Russian governmental conditions are. Mr. 
Burnett cites an instance that I had cited to me also of the way the 
frontier is guarded. From the Black Sea on the south to the North 
Sea on the north the European Russia frontier is guarded by cos- 
sacks, who are within rifle shot of each other, within sight of each 
other, and who are instructed if any one attempts to cross the border 
to shoot first and inquire afterwards. A gentleman in Germany, 
whom Mr. Burnett knows, but whose name I do not want to put in 
the record, told me that he stood on the hill at Mislowitz, where Mr. 
Burnett was during his trip, and saw a Russian peasant coming down 
the road from Russia toward Germany, and as he crossed the line 
a cossack rose up, armed with his rifle, and shot him. That was all 
there was to it. He was coming out of Russia on a public road, but 
was not coming through a passport station, and under the laws of 
Russia he was killed. Members of our Immigration Commission, 
armed with the highest kind of passports that the Government of 
the Lhiited States issues, were not allowed to step across the Rus¬ 
sian boundary at Mislowitz, although if they had gone to a pass- 

g ort station they would have had no more trouble than I had. 

rossing from Germany to Russia on a public road, gentlemen of 
evident standing and evidently strangers and foreigners whose only 
idea was curiosity, were turned back on a public road in broad day- 
light. 

Mr. Burnett. That is not exactly correct. At Mislowitz we crossed 
a little bridge and were met at the center by a cossack, and he showed 
us the line of demarcation, as much as to say, “This far, and no far¬ 
ther.” We then drew the passports which had been viseed by the 
Russian consul at New York, and he permitted us to pass in. The 
next day, at least a day or so afterwards, we were on a railroad leading 
from Germany into Russia with a German guide, and we met with the 
same kind of a cossack—they police the whole border for possibly a 
thousand miles—and he pointed to the same line and waived us back. 
We then produced the passport and showed it to him, and he looked at 
it and shook his head and would not permit us to go over. It was the 
only country where we even had to show our passports. 

Mr. Bennet. That is exterior Russia. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


263 


Mr. Burnett. We were also told of instances where some Russians 
had come across to the control station for the purpose of coming to 
America without passports, and were turned back on account of being 
deserters, and when they tried to return they were shot down by the 
cossacks. 

Mr. Bennet. That is Russia. Inside of the guard line that Mr. 
Burnett and I have described is another guard line consisting of 
mounted men who are not stationed at any particular place, but 
who ride up and down day and night, and inside of that, quite a 
distance, is another line of sentries, so that the border line of Russia 
is guarded by a triple line of sentinels. In addition, as I now recall, 
there is only one railroad with a standard gauge that goes into 
Russia. I think that was probably the one you were on. The 
gauge of the Russian railways is broader than the European rail¬ 
ways, and consequently freight and passengers have to change cars 
at the frontier, except on the one road that goes as far as Warsaw, 
in Poland. Immediately inside of the boundary is what is known 
as the “Pale,” and in that settlement is the only place in Russia 
where the Jews can live. A Jew can not live in St. Petersburg, except 
as the servant for some people called “merchants of the first guild.” 
He can not live in Moscow, except as a servant of a merchant of the 
first guild. He can live in Kief if he is an artisan or merchant of 
the first guild, but even in the cities where merchants of the first 
guild or artisans can live they are subject to visits from the police 
at any hour of the day or night. So it is not unusual for a police¬ 
man to come into the house of a Jewish artisan of the high class or 
a Jewish merchant of the first guild at midnight when he is asleep 
in bed with his wife and in the midst of liis family and come into his 
sleeping chamber and arouse him for the purpose of seeing if he is 
the man who is entitled to live in the house. That is the condition 
of the wealthier Jewish people. In the lower ranks of the Jews they 
are subject to persecution under that law that is hard for us to 
understand. They can only live in cities of a certain size, and as 
the law is being gradually enforced, a young man grows up and gets 
to the proper age and goes into the army from a place where he is not 
permitted to live, and when he serves his term he is prohibited from 
going back to the little village where he was born. They are re¬ 
stricted in their right to own or lease agricultural land. 

Mr. Hayes. I thought they were not allowed to own any land 
at all. 

Mr. Bennet. They are not, but I made the statement conserva¬ 
tively. They get around that by leasing, but even then only in a 
very limited way. They are restricted in the industries in which they 
can engage. Of course they are restricted in the free movement such 
as we have in this country, so that labor can move in accordance with 
the law of supply and demand. It is the more pitiable because Rus¬ 
sia is an undeveloped country, with room for millions more than are 
there, a beautiful country. I always had an idea that it was a bleak, 
bare, cold, desolate country, but as I rode across it—having been 
born in the country and knowing something of the country—from 
Berditschew to Kief I stayed at the car window all day looking at as 
fine an agricultural country as we have in the Middle West, and if 
the laws were such that people could live there and develop it there 
would be no Russian Jewish emigrants, because it is their country. 


264 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


They were there before the Christians came in. They were conquered 
people. 

Mr. Hayes. In Russia? 

Mr. Bennet. They will show you in Kief the place where the con¬ 
querors came and where the barbaric king discussed with his nobles— 
assistants, you might call them—what religion they should embrace, 
and they finally made up their minds to embrace Christianity and 
were all taken down to the river and baptized. 

Mr. Elvins. The Russians or Jews ? 

Mr. Bennet. The Tartars who came in. 

Mr. Hayes. The Jew was there before the invasion ? 

Mr. Bennet. It goes back a great many years. Even to this day 
the Jews are in terror on the anniversary of the day on which the 
Tartars embraced Christianity and were baptized, because that is a 
day in the year that the Jews are apt to be massacred. 

Mr. Hayes. Since you have gone into that history, would it not be 
well to state that before the invasion of western and eastern Russia 
they had a very high degree of government. You will remember that 
some of the cities like Kief were members of the Hanseatic League. 
They had self-government there about as highly developed as any 
country in Europe, and the Tartar invasion submerged all that. 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir; and the Jews were there as a part of that 
civilization at that time. As I say, they can not progress in the indus¬ 
tries because they are barred from the different branches of industry 
and from education. A gentleman at whose house I visited in Kief, 
who was, I presume, one of the wealthiest Jews of that place, a 
millionaire, desired to instruct his own son in his own business. 
Under the Russian law they would not allow that young man to learn 
his father’s business, because that is now proscribed. He was a sugar 
refiner. He could not put his own boy in his own office to learn his 
own business. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Is that an enactment against the 
race ? 

Mr. Bennet. It is under what is known as the “May law,” as 
passed in 1882. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Specifying the Jews as proscribed ? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir; and those laws have been continued from 
year to year since. They were continued quite recently for another 
year. 

Now, I was in the city of Berditschew, a city of 80,000 people, 
which has 80 per cent Jews. I do not think that there is anyone who 
will deny that the Jews in this country are industrious, that they 
have become prosperous and that they are progressive. I never 
heard it denied. In fact, one of the accusations is that they are too 
progressive. 

Mr. Hayes. Is it not also true that the Jew is able and as a matter 
of fact does, even in that very uncongenial and limited environment, 
read and write, either in Yiddish or Hebrew? 

Mr. Bennet. It depends on what you call reading and writing. 
I suppose the percentage of Jews, of course, they are mainly orthodox, 
who can not read the Talmud is negligible. That is, the male Jews, 
but the women can not. They have no opportunity. They are not 
allowed in the public schools. Education with the Jews is a matter 
of their own procurement. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


265 


Mr. Hayes. A family matter, largely ? 

Mr. Bennet. To some extent, and besides that a matter of paying 
taxes for the public schools for others and then paying an additional 
sum for the education of their own children. I want to show you 
what chance they have. In the first place in the city of Berditschew, 
with a population of about 80,000 people, where they told us that 
over 80 per cent were Jews, it had prior to 1882, when there was unre¬ 
stricted communication, been a prosperous place. It was the only 
living dead place I ever was in. Industry had practically ceased. 
There is a little clothing business in a very minor way. There was 
not a well-dressed, prosperous-looking person in the whole place, as 
near as I could see. In that place of 80,000 people there was not a 
hotel where a traveler could get both a room and meals. There was 
one hotel where we could stop, get a room, but we had to go to another 
hotel for meals. We wanted to call on some people, a doctor and 
some others of standing, and we sent out for a carriage and we were 
willing to pay for a good carriage. They sent a carriage to our door 
that we could not go through the streets of Washington in without a 
crowd following with laughter and derision. I do not think it had 
been painted in five years. The harness was patched, the horses 
were old, and the driver had on a long overcoat, and if he had one patch 
on his coat he had a hundred. If it had not been so pathetic, it 
would have been indescribably ludicrous. 

Mr. Burnett. Did you not find the same condition of squalor 
among the natives as well as among the Jews ? 

Mr. Bennet. Well, in that particular city, yes; because it is very 
largely a Jewish city. I am trank to say that I did not go either 
to St. Petersburg or Moscow. Mr. Burnett did. 

Mr. Burnett. No; I only went into Russia at Mishowitz, just 
across the line, the place where Mr. Latimer and Mr. Howell took the 
line to St. Petersburg. I have only a very limited knowledge of 
Russia, only the country on the border. 

Mr. Bennet. If there is the same degree of squalor, there is not the 
same reason, but there is one reason why the Jew progresses more in 
Russia than the muzhik. The Jew is a very temperate person; he is 
not a total abstainer, but he does not drink to excess. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Is it not true that in many of the places in Rus¬ 
sia the Jew lives very temperately in a degree, while the muzhik in 
some places is given to drinking and exhibits all the evidences of 
having lived in excess and vice ? 

Mr. Bennet. That is the uncontradicted testimony of everyone, 
and when I get to Roumania I will describe the difference between 
the two villages, one Christian and one Jewish, that I visited. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Are you able to tell us how many 
Jews there are in Russia and what their proportion is to the natives ? 

Mr. Bennet. No one is. Like everything else in Russia, the sta¬ 
tistics are unreliable, but their number is unquestionably much less 
than 10 per cent of the entire population. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. The Jewish population would be less 
than 10 per cent of the Russian population? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir; less than that. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Would that run into the millions ?. 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir. There are seven or eight million Jews in 
Russia. 


266 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Hayes. Including Roumania ? 

Mr. Bennet. No, sir; there are only about 250,000 in Roumania— 
less than that, and about 8,000,000 in Russia. 

Mr. Goldfogle. About 7,500,000. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Would you say that the disposition 
of most of the Jews there was to leave Russia ? 

Mr. Bennet. If the Jews of Russia had the money the immigra¬ 
tion of Jews to this country would only be limited by the number of 
ships to carry them. 

Mr. Elvins. Is there any disposition on the part of the Russian 
Government to prevent them from leaving? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir; there is a disposition on the part of the 
Russian Government to prevent them. I do not know that I could 
say that there is that disposition on the part of the central govern¬ 
ment at St. Petersburg. The whole Russian Government is per¬ 
meated with corruption that we can not understand. With this 
system that I have described, of triple guards at the frontier, of which 
everyone knows, 50 per cent of the Jews that leave Russia are com¬ 
pelled to come without passports through those three ranks of 
armed men. 

Mr. Elvins. Either by evasion or bribery? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I would like to ask your opinion, and 
the question is very pertinent, I think, whether the Jews tnere in the 
congested sections, so far as you were able to observe, are rebellious 
as against the existing order of things in Russia or whether they 
have the means of putting away disaffection or whether they resist 
the Government? 

Mr. Bennet. That is rather a double-jointed question, and I will 
have to answer it in several ways. The question of whether the Jews 
being so greatly in the minority should resist oppression is a question 
of policy which is discussed not only by the Jews there, but over the 
whole world. There are two distinct parties; one says that in the end 
they will wear out oppression by submission, and the other which 
advances armed opposition. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Is it not a fact that the large majority of Jews 
have not resorted to any such armed opposition and on the contrary 
have been very obedient to the laws and very submissive to the 
regulations and ordinances of the places in which they dwell ? 

Mr. Bennet. I think Mr. Moore’s question referred more particu¬ 
larly to when the attempted massacres take place, whether they 
resist. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I wanted to get your opinion of the 
attitude of these oppressed people, whether they tried to congregate 
and talk matters over between themselves. I want to get your 
opinion of their attitude under the existing Government with a view to 
determining what their attitude might be toward any other govern¬ 
ment to which they might go. It is a very serious question and I 
am putting it in the broadest possible way so that you can answer it 
freely. 

Mr. Bennet. When I was there the Russian Government was 
resorting to repressive measures. Every policeman in Warsaw stood 
in the center of the street stock still and was guarded by two soldiers, 
who stood on the sidewalk on either side with rifles so no one could 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


267 


kill the policeman. They were said to be arresting between 400 and 
500 people a week without any warrant and putting them in jail, and 
they put 70 people in a room that would only accommodate 20, and 
where there were no sanitary facilities whatever. Now, after they 
had continued that for some time, they made up their minds that 
the city was peaceful, and so one night without any notice they took 
away the soldier guards of the policemen, and that night the people 
rose and killed 43 policemen. 

In Vilna, where the Russian Government has always maintained 
a heavy guard, there came a governor who took just the opposite 
view. He sent for the leading Jews and the leading citizens, and 
he said: “ There will be no military guard on the police. The 
police will not be used for anything except the enforcement of the 
laws against disorder, burglary, murder, etc. I am going to trust 
the people.” They did not believe him, but he kept his w r ord abso¬ 
lutely and took away all the guards. He used the police in a normal 
way, such as they would be used in this country, and he had abso¬ 
lutely no disorder. I was there during that time, and they told us 
that the most unpopular men in the towm then were the few remaining 
persons who had been patriots when there w r as armed oppression, 
but who now were regarded as nuisances, because, they said,“We are 
getting along all right. This governor is fair, and we do not need to 
be stirred up.” Their streets were just as calm as any place, with 
not an armed guard in sight, but within a very short time after that 
the Russian Government took away that governor and sent a governor 
who restored the old order, who put the guards for the police on the 
streets, and resorted to the same espionage system and things went 
right back. That is not the only example. There was a liberal 
governor at Odessa at one time who put dowm the “Black Hundred.” 
The Black Hundred are the Russians who stir up the peasants and 
incite them against the Jews. They are just as much violators of 
the law as anyone, but they are permitted, although in their ranks 
are knowm murderers and known criminals of every description. 
It is from the records of the Douma that I make that statement. 
This governor started and put down the Black Hundred just as he 
w r ould any other criminals, and the Russian Government removed 
him and put a governor there who allowed the Black Hundred to 
continue their work. That is an answer to that. Where these people 
are treated decently they devote their time and attention to the 
arts, industries, and peace. And where they are oppressed they 
band together, and I think that is quite natural. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Too much restriction, in your opin¬ 
ion, has incited rebellion ? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. You spoke awhile ago of the opposition of the 
German Government to allowing them to remain in their country ? 

Mr. Bennet. The opposition of the German Government to the 
Jews? 

Mr. Burnett. The people from Russia coming over there and 


staying. 

Mr. Bennet. There are antisemitic laws in Germany. 

Mr. Burnett. Why is it if they are quiet, good people, that under 
the good laws Germany has they do not welcome them to their 
(*>untry as citizens and let them remain there ? 


268 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Bennet. I have never made a special study of the German 
question. I presume it is an inherited or religious question of some 
sort. I am frank to say that I was not detailed to Germany on our 
trip and that particular subject I did not go into. 

Mr. Burnett. You remember that at Breslau they had an order 
issued compelling them to leave. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Where? 

Mr. Burnett. Breslau, in Germany. 

Mr. Kustermann. They have a general law that no one is per¬ 
mitted to stay longer than two years unless permission is given. If I 
should go there I would have to have permission from the Government. 
That is the general law. 

Mr. Burnett. Is it not true that at a port north of Russia, where 
the steamship line is owned by Russian capitalists, there is rather 
encouragement for them to leave by that line ? 

Mr. Bennet. There was a fleet known as the “ Russian volunteer 
fleet,” which was owned by the Russian grand dukes and some capi¬ 
talists attached to the court. It is true that if a person signified his 
intention to leave by that fleet he could get out of Russia with forged 
passports, absolutely fraudulent on their face, anything that a man 
can by any shadow pass him. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. ‘‘If you go by our line, we will let 
you out ?” 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. There is no interference by the Government ? 

Mr. Bennet. As long as he went by that line, he would be per¬ 
mitted to go. That is one of the contradictions of the Russian Gov¬ 
ernment system, that while all their secret police and everything are 
trying to catch criminals and anarchists, as is their function, here is 
the Russian Government line, which is the line used by those people 
and unquestionably with the knowledge of the Russian officials. 
That is just simply a part of the corruption that covers the whole 
country. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Now, please give us their occupa¬ 
tions, their means of livelihood, those who concentrate in the cities. 

Mr. Bennet. They are being kept from agricultural pursuits and 
in consequence are being driven to be mechanics and in the industries 
in the cities where they can live—the mechanical industries, machine 
shops and everything of that sort. The artisans in those places are 
Jews. That is what they go into there. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Are they being prohibited from 
taking up agriculture ? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes; they are not allowed to go into agriculture. 

Mr. Burnett. Even in their own “pale.” 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir; they are compelled to live in a city or village 
of some size. The only way a Jew gets into agriculture is by stealth 
and through having a Christian as nominal owner or lessee. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Do they buy land at all ? 

Mr. Bennet. No, sir. A merchant of the first guild can buy land. 
I am not sure that he can buy agricultural land. He can buy land 
in the cities. They are kept by law from acquiring agricultural land. 

Mr. Burnett. Around the Black Sea a great many are engaged in 
farming ? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir; through certain portions of Russia, whej^e 
nearly a century ago the then liberal Czar opened tracts for the Jews, 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


269 


and there are extensive agricultural settlements on those tracts, but 
the Jews are being slowly driven from those tracts. Every time a 
young man enlists in the army and goes to serve in the army, when 
liis term of enlistment is over, he can not go back. 

Mr. Elvins. Where does he go? 

Mr. Bennet. Wherever he can. 

Mr. Hayes. The Jew does not go into agriculture because he does 
not naturally take to agricultural pursuits. 

Mr. Burnett. Even in this country. 

Mr. Goldfogle. A large number are now taking to agricultural 
pursuits in this country. 

Mr. Hayes. Where? 

Mr. Goldfogle. They have even an organization of the larger 
farmers. They have held a fair in New York, and it was a very 
creditable thing indeed. 

Mr. Hayes. I am not saying this in derogation, because I do not 
think it is. 

Mr. Bennet. I think that is an error. 

Mr. Hayes. I have lived among them more or less all my life and 
I have never known of one. 

Mr. Goldfogle. They have even farm schools, which are well con¬ 
ducted. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. One of the best institutions in Penn¬ 
sylvania is conducted under Jewish auspices. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Reverend Doctor Krauskopt, whom Mr. Moore 
knows very well, I think- 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Yes; I know him very well. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Is at the head of that institution. That farm 
school turns out a large number of young men well equipped to take 
upon themselves the varied agricultural pursuits. The Secretary of 
the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Wilson, has highly commended 
that institution. He has been there. Every year there has been a 
number of young men who have graduated and who go out to the 
different portions of the country and engage in farming and who are 
thoroughly up-to-date in the farming industry. 

Mr. Burnett. Is that school limited to the Jews ? 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. No. I know a great deal about that 
institution. I have been there once or twice at their commencement. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That is not the only one; we have a number. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. As Doctor Krauskopf describes it, it 
is a nonsectarian school. The teachers have been Christians, but 
there are Jewish teachers, and the scholars, as a rule, have been Jewish 
boys who have been taken from the streets from the centers of popu¬ 
lation. These boys have been taught the chemistry of farming and 
have found lucrative positions immediately after graduation. Some 
of them have gone to take charge of large farms on salaries as high 
as $1,800 a year at the start. It is an exceedingly creditable insti¬ 
tution. There are other institutions of farming in our vicinity under 
the direction of the Baron de Hirsch fund where farming is encour¬ 
aged, and to-day in the lower part of New Jersey- 

Mr. Goldfogle. There is a colony at Vineland. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Woodbine and Vineland, where, in 
addition to farming, they, are engaged in manufacturing pursuits, 
work in the mills, and enterprises of that kind. Perhaps there have 
been one or two failures of colonies of this kind. I have asked Mr. 



270 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Bennet these questions with a view to ascertaining if it is his opinion 
that the Jews coming from such frightful conditions as prevail in 
Russia into a country where we are supposed to be a little more favor¬ 
able in the matter of our liberty, laws, and order, if they would tend 
to help us in the agricultural growth of our country where we need 
them so badly. 

Mr. Bennet. The census figures show, taking the foreigners gener¬ 
ally, including the Jews, that the tendency to go into agriculture is 
increasing. 

Mr. Hayes. It has been diminishing for many years. 

Mr. Bennet. No. 

Mr. Goldfogle. There are many Jewish farmers in North Dakota 
and South Dakota and in many of the Northwestern States, and they 
have done excellent farming work; even down in Texas. 

Mr. Moore, of Texas. What part of Texas ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. Just that I can not tell you. They have settled 
down there. 

Mr. Bennet. I think near Brazos. 

Mr. Moore, of Texas. I live on that river. I will tell you that 
there are a good many Russian Jews coming into my section of Texas, 
and I know at least 20 families at my own home, and they are all 
merchants. The natives there have no prejudice against the Jews, 
because they are good, law-abiding people, but they wonder why they 
do not go into agricultural pursuits. They are all merchants engaged 
in some business in the town. 

Mr. Bennet. That is because they and their fathers and their 
grandfathers for centuries in the countries from which they came have 
been engaged in business. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Even the opportunity to lease land and to farm 
on shares has been restricted and limited in Russia. 

Mr. Moore, of Texas. I have heard the question asked why they 
did not go into agricultural pursuits and the native Texans say: 
“The Jew is too smart to take hold of the plow handle.” 

Mr. Goldfogle. A great many of the native American farm boys 
prefer to leave the farms and go to the cities and engage in the city 
industries. That statement has been made before this committee. 

Mr. Bennet. In Sullivan County, N. Y., near where I was born, 
there used to be hardly any Jews, but now that is very largely a 
Jewish farming community. It might be well to add, in passing, 
that the farmers who sold them their land found them very good 
customers at high prices. You can not tell any of the old-time 
Sullivan farmers that the Jew is a hard bargainer. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I take the statements as they were made by the 
gentlemen who appeared before this committee to argue for restrict¬ 
ive measures. They have time and time again developed before this 
committee that the tendency of the American boy on the farm now 
is to get away from the farm and to engage in the city activities. So 
we find that the native American boy who is not a Jew is as anxious 
to get to the city and engage in the commercial pursuits as anybody 
else. I have taken the statements of the gentlemen who appeared 
before this committee to argue for restrictive measures. 

Mr. Burnett. That is a very small proportion of those who 
remain. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I suppose that is so; I do not know just what it 
is. I take it the number must be considerable, else those who appeared 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


271 


before the committee would not have used that argument. They 
seemed to be very frank and honest and they made the statements in 
good faith. 

Mr. Hayes. What Mr. Moore is trying to bring out and what I 
would like to bring out is the fact that the American farm boy, 
although he goes to the city, has a sort of hunger for the country and, 
if he gets well to do, he will go and buy a big farm and live on it. The 
Jew’s inclination, as I understand, is just the other way. 

Mr. Goldfogle. He does, however, go back and, I think you will 
find, contributes to the improvement of the locality. 

Mr. Hayes. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Goldfogle. In the cities where he has gone he has helped 
toward increased values of the real estate. A great many of those 
who have come from Russia and who lived under those deplorable 
conditions described by my colleague, Mr. Bennet, have become pros¬ 
perous merchants. They have large factories, stores, employing 
laborers and paying good wages, and they add to the prosperity of 
the community where they settle. I think that will be conceded by 
every member of this committee. 

Mr. Burnett. The Jewish merchants are among as good citizens 
as we have in our country. 

Mr. Elvins. You said that you would tell us why the immigration 
was now going into Germany ? 

Mr. Bennet. Because of this tremendous increase in industry and 
agriculture, wages have gone up and the continuity of labor has 
increased. 

Mr. Elvins. Anybody else going into Germany ? 

Mr. Bennet. From Poland and Italy. A temporary migration to 
harvest the crops. 

Mr. Elvins. It is not a general stream of immigration? 

Mr. Bennet. No, sir; not like to this country. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That stream is not so to any country except to 
this country ? 

Mr. Bennet. Argentine Republic. 

Mr. Burnett. I would like to ask whether you did not find a state¬ 
ment made that the Germans were not coming to this country on 
account of the influx from the Mediterranean Sea people ? 

Mr. Bennet. No; I read your report, thinking I could find such a 
statement, but there was none. 

Mr. Burnett. I heard that statement made by individuals. 

Mr. Bennet. I never heard it. I take as the basis of my state¬ 
ment the report made by Senator Latimer and you. 

Mr. Burnett. I do not think I signed that report. I did not 
sign it for the reasons I stated to Senator Latimer. 

Mr. Bennet. It seems to be pretty generally conceded that 
there is no particular objection to the Jew. At least I heard none 
expressed. The Jew comes in families. According to the figures in 
the various reports of the Bureau of Immigration, 25 per cent of 
those people who are religious refugees will be shut out of our country 
if you pass the illiteracy provision. 

"Mr. Hayes. It depends on how you word that provision. I have 
stated that several times. If you provide that the head of the 
family must read, and if he has daughters or a wife who are otherwise 
admissible, it will not exclude them ? 


272 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Bennet. Yes; you will not exclude so large a percentage. 
Then, if you increase the head tax to $10, as is proposed by some of 
the bills here—I am not discussing those bills which propose $50 and 
$100, because those are out of the range—if you increase the head 
tax to $10, what you do to a large family is this: You make a man 
coming here with a family because he is a refugee pay a prohibitive 
tax, because they have four or five children—seven or eight is not 
unusual—and the head tax must be paid even on the baby that is 
born on the ship coming over, whether they pay for the steamship 
tickets or not; and on the ordinary Jewish family of four or five 
children and father and mother you are putting a tax of $70, whereas 
the man who comes for temporary work and goes back in winter 
simply pays the $10, and, in my judgment, is not nearly as much 
entitled to consideration as the religious or political refugee who 
comes here with his family, because you must bear in mind this: Of 
course, I am a Christian and have the profoundest feeling toward 
my own people, but I can not but admire the constancy and fidelity 
of those people to their faith when I realize that all a Jew in Russia 
has to do in order to free himself from all these conditions is to go 
into a Greek Christian Church and simply say, with his lips, not 
with his heart, “I am a Christian,” and although of these seven or 
eight million oppressed people thousands are killed and more thou¬ 
sands are made destitute, you can almost count in any one year on 
your two hands the number of Jews who give up their faith and go 
into the Christian Church and say, “I am a Christian,” although to 
do so not only saves life and property but opens the door to pros¬ 
perity in the future. 

Mr. Hayes. Persecution has done that. 

Mr. Bennet. They are not the only oppressed people. I have just 
as much sympathy for those who are being massacred in other coun¬ 
tries as the Jews in Russia and Roumania. I have shown this com¬ 
mittee before some 70 or 80 pictures that I got in Russia after a 
massacre there. The American consul at Mersine, Turkey, brought 
me the other day a picture of one of the results of the Roumanian 
massacres. He did not get to the scene of the massacre until six 
weeks after it was over and yet so numerous had been the deaths 
and so widespread the destruction that the unburied corpses were 
lying there by hundreds and thousands strewn over the grounds and 
the fields. I want to pass around this picture, showing a peaceful 
Roumanian farmer murdered in his own field. 

Mr. Burnett. By a Mohammedan ? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes, sir. And yet living in a land where the Govern¬ 
ment had made it impossible to learn, though they were ambitious, 
industrious, shrewd, and progressive. I can not vote to put up a 
bar against the people of my own faith and religion and keep them 
out of here simply because they have not had the educational privi¬ 
leges that I have. 

Mr. Goldfogle. And yet we call this the age of civilization ? 

Mr. Bennet. So long as a condition of that kind exists, where men 
of my own faith and belief are being murdered by men of other faith 
and belief, because of their faith and belief, I will never vote to keep 
them out. 

Mr. Hayes. We can not make the United States the harbor of 
refuge for all the persecuted people of the world. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 273 

Mr. Burnett. The Christian Chinese persecuted for the same reason 
should be admitted for the same reason ? 

Mr. Bennet. I am not prepared to bar out the white Christian of 
my own faith simply because he has not had the opportunity in his 
country which I have had in this country. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That is right. 

Mr. Bennet. You say that we do not want to make this country a 
harbor of refuge; it has never been anything else. 

Mr. Hayes. That is the way to destruction, if you pursue it to the 
logical end. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I think the sentiment of my colleague, Mr. Bennet, 
is in accord with the American spirit. 

Mr. Hayes. But you can not legislate on sentiment. 

Mr. Bennet. The moment we cease to legislate on sentiment in 
this country we begin to retrograde. That has been the history of 
every country. 

Mr. Hayes. I had some sentiment when I went to California. 
If you will come out and stay with me for two months, if you do not 
change your mind you will be the first white man. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Are there no children of foreigners attending the 
schools in the congressional district represented by Mr. Hayes ? 

Mr. Hayes. Lots of them. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Do you not find, Mr. Hayes, that these children 
of immigrant parents are very bright, and after attending the school 
a very few months become accustomed to American habits and 
adopt American customs and very soon exhibit all the traits we 
love to see in the Americans who stand for the flag and all it represents. 

Mr. Hayes. Emphatically, yes. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That is the way in New York, Boston, and 
Chicago. 

Mr. Kustermann. And all through the country. 

Mr. Hayes. I visited a school just before I came here last fall, 
where there were Chinese, Japanese, and Italian children; I am not 
going to specify any of them, but it takes them about two years to 
complete the same course of study that the American and Jew child 
will do in one year. 

Mr. O’Connell. The young Italian children in Boston are as quick 
as any children ever born. 

Mr." Goldfogle. In New York they learn rapidly and develop a 
remarkable degree of intelligence and come out splendid types of 
boyhood or girlhood. 

Mr. Hayes. One of the difficulties, of course, is due to the fact that 
English is not spoken at home. 

Mr. Kustermann. Do you think it is wrong for the parents to 
continue the German language with the children so as to give them 
an opportunity to learn two languages ? 

Mr. Hayes. I am not condemning it. 

Mr. Kustermann. I do the same thing at home. 

Mr. O’Connell. The mayor of Boston has just returned and is 
advocating teaching Spanish in all of the Boston grammar and 
public schools. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow, Friday, 
March 11, 1910, at 10.30 a. m.) 

49090—10-18 


274 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Friday , March 11, 1910. 

The committee met at 10.40 o’clock a. m., Hon. William S. Bennet 
presiding. Others present were Representatives Adair, Goldfogle, 
Moore, of Texas, Sabatli, O’Connell, Kustermann, Burnett, Edwards, 
Moore, of Pennsylvania, and Elvins. 

Mr. Bennet. This is a hearing on the House bill, arranged at the 
request of Judge Goldfogle, of the committee, and the speakers, 
unless there is objection on the part of the committee, will be called 
by the Judge in the order he desires. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Mr. Simon Wolf, of Washington, may be first 
heard. 

STATEMENT OF SIMON WOLF, ESQ., OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear this morning 
representing two large constituencies, and Mr. Kohler and Mr. Elkus, 
of New York, have joined forces with me in representing these organ¬ 
izations. There is also a list of names that I have handed up, repre¬ 
senting the American Jewish committee, consisting of Mr. Marshall, 
Doctor Adler, Mr. Cyrus Sulzberger, and Mr. Henry Cutler, of Prov¬ 
idence, R. I. All of these gentlemen will have something to say, 
in regard not only to the pending bills, but to the general subject 
involving immigration from the earliest period of our country’s 
history, and the practical effect it has had, and in regard to what 
has been accomplished by the legislation on the statute books, and 
the administration under the rules and regulations as made by the 
Department of Commerce and Labor. 

I want it understood right in the inception that we are here, in 
common with all others, as American citizens. Our most sincere 
desire is to do that which will contribute most to the welfare of all, 
to uphold everything that is sacred and loyal in our institutions, to 
the end that the immigrants coming here, and for whom, to a certain 
extent, we are responsible, as far as our own coreligionists are con¬ 
cerned, shall be a blessing in the future as they have been a source of 
prosperity in the past. 

1 do not intend to take up the time of any of the speakers, or to 
dilate upon subjects that they have made a special study of. I wish 
to simply state that naturally I am very much interested in a subject 
of which I form a component part. I am an immigrant myself, and 
with the American committee there is a splendid object lesson in the 
person of Mr. Henry Cutler, a member of the Rhode Island legisla¬ 
ture, and who has by dint of energy and great resourcefulness swung 
himself to the very head, not only in mercantile affairs, but in all 
affairs that appertain to the welfare of our country. 

It would be carrying coals to Newcastle to tell an intelligent body of 
American Members of Congress what immigration has been. I only 
wish to emphasize that as far as I am concerned, and as far as those 
whom I represent and those who are represented by other members of 
the different organizations are concerned, they have but one ambition, 
and that is to aid the Government in the proper administration of 
just laws, and, at the same time, to aid the incoming immigrant to 
become a loyal, self-supporting, intelligent, and patriotic American 
citizen. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


275 


I wish to say one particular word in regard to the bureau of infor¬ 
mation, which I believe is provided for m section 40 in the present 
immigration law. That bureau, for some reason or another, has been 
somewhat crippled within the last six months by misunderstanding 
and misconception as to the scope of its work. Mr. Sulzberger will 
speak more at length on that subject, as far as his experience with 
removal work is concerned. 

Mr. Adair. Will the gentleman pardon an interruption just there? 

Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Adair. The gentleman has stated that he represents some 
certain society, and that other gentlemen from New York represents 
another society. In order that we may understand what those 
societies are, I would like to have the gentleman state what societies 
he has reference to ? 

Mr. Wolf. I have handed the list to the clerk. Mr. Cutler and 
Mr. Elkus represent the board of delegates of the Union of American 
Hebrew Congregations. I also represent the great order of B’nai 
B’rith, of which I am the resident member. There is also Rabbi 
Abram Simon, of this city, who is also a member of the board. These 
other gentlemen represent the American Jewish committee. I 
understand there are other gentlemen here to speak for themselves 
later. 

I simply wish to state further that this bureau of information has 
done a vast amount of work, and good work. I came in contact with 
it, as I go annually to the city of Atlanta to attend a meeting of the 
orphan’s home, of which I am a visitor. I have come in contact with 
people whom that bureau has sent, not only in Atlanta, but in Savan¬ 
nah, and in other cities in the Southwest. The bureau has, in my 
opinion, been the best creation of the Bureau of Immigration. It is 
directing immigrants to where they can find, not only employment, 
but congenial association. A vast amount of information is con¬ 
veyed to the incoming immigrant gratuitously; he need pay nothing. 
The climate, the character of the people, the religion that is practiced 
there, whether there is a Catholic or a Protestant church, or a Jewish 
synagogue—all this information is given. Hundreds of letters have 
been received from farming interests all over the country, thanking 
the bureau and making inquiries. The reason that I am so particiular 
in perpetuating and enlarging the influence of this bureau is that it 
aids in distributing from the congested seaboard cities immigrants 
who are only too anxious to be diverted, but who are ignorant of the 
facts, which the bureau can show adequately, and has so adequately 
furnished. 

I wish to state in conclusion, as far as our wishes are concerned, 
there has been less complaint in regard to the law as it exists than 
there has been as to certain features of the administration. In our 
humble opinion many things could be done that would be conducive 
to the proper administration of the law without being so drastic as it 
is administered at present in certain directions; but that does not 
enter into legislation, but enters more into rules and regulations to 
be made by the Department of Commerce and Labor. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Mr. Wolf, our attention has been particularly 
directed, by a number of gentlemen who have appeared before us, 
to the proposition to increase the head tax and provide for a literacy 
test. In view of your wide experience in immigration matters I think; 


276 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


we would like to hear you on those two points. Would you advance 
your views on those two propositions ? 

Mr. Wolf. I am positively opposed, based on experience and ob¬ 
servation, to an increase of the tax. I was opposed to the last in¬ 
crease. I do not think it is necessary or essential. The money 
comes out of the pockets of the immigrants, to a large extent, who 
have been impoverished by persecution in the land of their birth, who 
are seeking new homes, and who are trying to do the best they can, 
many of them landing with very little of the world’s goods, and as 
an increase in the tax would come out of their pockets, and would 
simply be used in a direction where it is absolutely not essential— 
that is, the Treasury of the United States—I think that the head 
tax would be entirely uncalled for and unnecessary. A great Govern¬ 
ment like ours ought not to try to make money unnecessarily out of 
persecuted humanity. That was the only thing. 

What was the other question ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. As to the proposition to provide a literacy test. 

Mr. Wolf. I can only say that if the gentlemen of the committee 
refer to the celebrated and immortal message of President Cleveland, 
they will have a complete answer, far more cogent, far more states¬ 
manlike, than I could possibly give. I know to my own knowledge 
that in 1848, in 1850, and 1852, when a stream of German immi¬ 
grants, owing to the German revolution, came to this country, there 
were among them quite a number of men who have since risen to the 
highest dignity in our country, who could do nothing more than 
merely write their names, and that in Hebrew; yet notwithstanding 
they have come to the very forefront in all American affairs. Some 
of the most noted anarchists are the best scholars. It does not prove 
that education is a ban to the desire to destroy governments or to kill 
Presidents. We have had experience in that line. A tax of that 
kind, or a law of that kind would, in my judgment, be entirely un- 
American, uncalled for, and diametrically in contrast with the ex¬ 
perience we have had with the immigration that has so far come to 
our country. While some of the first generation may not be up to the 
standard of reading Emerson, or Longfellow, or Dickens, or Darwin, 
yet, in their own vernacular, among their own people, they are thor¬ 
oughly versed in and replete with all that is necessary to a moral and 
decent life, and the best evidence as to the second generation of those 
very people is, as some of the gentlemen here know from their own 
experience in their cities and towns, these immigrants from Russia 
and Roumania stand at the very forefront of scholarship and have 
won the prizes from those who have been to the manor born. 

Mr. Burnett. Let me ask you right there, are not the classes of the 
immigrants coming from along the borders of the Mediterranean Sea 
very different from those who were coming at the time you speak of, 
and even at the time of Mr. Cleveland’s message. You speak of your 
people, and very properly so, but does that appty with equal force to 
the south Italian, and the Sicilian, and the Greek, and the Syrian, 
people from that section of the country ? 

Mr. Wolf. My own experience, of course, in that direction, is lim¬ 
ited, but I have come in contact with many people from those 
countries, especially when I had the honor of representing our 
country in Egypt. I came in contact with a great many of those men, 
and while they may not have been up to the preconceived standards 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


277 


of the strict restrictionists as to immigration, I think they would 
make very good citizens, provided always that the naturalization 
laws would be so made that these people could not come here for the 
specific purpose of being naturalized, and then, on the day after, go 
back to their countries, claiming immunity from the land of their 
birth by virtue of their American citizenship, and disregarding their 
obligations to this country, thus using the naturalization law as a 
vehicle for their own selfish ends. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Wolf, there was a suggestion made yesterday 
that a literacy test which applied only to the heads of families, the 
male heads of families, would bar out very few Russian Jews, the 
assertion being made—not by myself—that the heads of Russian 
Jewish and Roumanian Jewish families were, in almost every in¬ 
stance, literate, to the extent of being able to read and write some 
language. What is your observation as to that ? 

Mr. Wolf. Candidly, I do not believe there will be a single Rus¬ 
sian or Roumanian Jew excluded on account of being illiterate, but 
as far as the women are* concerned, I will state here that my own 
sainted mother was unable to read or write German. She could 
read her treasured Jewish prayer book, and she could write in Hebrew, 
and I do not know that I ever knew a better or nobler woman, and 
so they are, I believe, in the majority. These people, you must 
remember, have been restricted to a certain extent. The women 
in Israel have not disregarded the precept of the late President 
Roosevelt in regard to race propagation, and they have a great deal 
of work to do, and they can not indulge in the modern fads of whist 
and other celebrated pastimes. 

Mr. Burnett. A regulation to require them to be able to read 
their own language or dialect would not exclude any male heads of 
families ? 

Mr. Wolf. I do not believe it would. 

Mr. Burnett. Would it exclude many females over 16 years of 
age ? 

Mr. Wolf. I do not think it would; I do not know. But there 
is absolutely no occasion for it. My own opinion has always been 
in all matters of life to let well enough alone, and not to continually 
add on to laws that are already producing splendid results and have 
continually shown their great power for good. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What has been your experience, Mr. Wolf, with 
respect to the enforcement of the immigration law ? 

Mr. Wolf. What do you mean by that, please ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. The enforcement of the law. 

Mr. Wolf. By whom? 

Mr. Goldfogle. By the immigration authorities. 

Mr. Wolf. My own observation has been, and I have been con¬ 
nected with it since the Immigration Bureau has been created, that 
the heads of those bureaus and the administrative portion in various 
cities, and the head of the department, have uniformly been most 
courteous. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I have not reference so much to the extension of 
courtesy as I have to the enforcement of the law. 

Mr. Wolf. I think they have enforced the law to the full extent, 
as far as it is permitted to them. They have exercised time and 
again a wise discretion, which the law conferred on them. 


278 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Goldfogle. The reason I asked was that before the committee 
it has been asserted that there was laxity in the enforcement of the 
law. 

Mr. Wolf. I do not think there has been any laxity. If there has 
been anything at all in that direction it has been at times too literal 
a construction of the letter of the law. Possibly at times, when a 
heartrending case came up the necessary amount of discretion may 
not have been exercised, but in the main the law has been justly 
observed, and I, for one, having a very large experience, have no 
complaints to make whatsoever, because whatever I have to say has 
been said to the authorities in person when the individual case was 
before them for action. 

Mr. Adair. Going back to the head tax, Judge Goldfogle and 
Judge Sabath both are very active and very earnest in their advocacy 
of the views that you have expressed here this morning; but in rela¬ 
tion to the head tax, do you believe the tax should be fixed at such 
a rate as would cover the cost of administering the immigration laws, 
or should that expense be paid out of the general fund ? 

Mr. Wolf. I think the head tax ought to be a minimum tax. I 
think whatever expenses are incident to the administration of the 
Immigration Service should be borne by the Government, as any 
other branch of the Government, and whatever is realized from the 
head tax should go into the Treasury, irrespective. 

Mr. Adair. Your idea is that it should not be levied with a view 
of covering the entire expense ? 

Mr. Wolf. Not at all, because that might lead to a head tax of 
$20 or $25, in the course of time. We have got to expect, by the 
very nature of things, a constant and increasing immigration of 
desirable people. 

Mr. Adair. Would that necessarily increase the expense of admin¬ 
istering the law to any great extent? 

Mr. Wolf. Undoubtedly. When I came here forty-eight years 
ago we did not have such a magnificent building as this, and a large 
number of public buildings. The growth of the nation has made 
more buildings and an increased force necessary, and the expenses 
of running this great country are to-day four times larger than when 
I came here in 1862. 

Mr. Adair. But would not this be true—the larger the immigration 
the less per capita the cost of administering the law? Is not that 
the rule in all lines of business and generally speaking ? 

Mr. Wolf. Yes; but there would be absolutely, in the various 
cities where the immigrants land, a necessity to have increased facili¬ 
ties for handling them, and in a thousand ways money would have 
to be expended that at present you have not done, to the penalty 
of the immigrant. If this country stands for anything, it stands 
to-day as the asylum of the oppressed, provided we get desirable 
people. 

Mr. Adair. You understand, I was not asking this question with 
a view of advancing the doctrine of increasing the head tax, but 
with a view of trying to get some idea as to what the facts should be, 
and as to whether it should cover the cost and as to what the cost 
would be in case of increased immigration, and so forth. 

Mr. Wolf. 1 spoke once before a committee similar to this, and 
I said then $2 was ample. Four dollars is surely more than ample, 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


279 


and there ought to be no legislation making immigration a crime 
or extorting from the poor immigrant that which he needs so sorely 
to found his new home. 

Mr. Adair. I agree with you on that. 

Mr. Burnett. In regard to one other bill that this committee 
has had before it, I would like to have your valuable opinion. I 
congratulate you upon the fact that it does not apply to your people 
much, especially in the section of country I come from—the South. 
This is in regard to the deportation of criminal aliens. This commit¬ 
tee has reported a bill recommending the deportation of criminals 
who,' within five years after arrival, are convicted of crimes involving 
moral turpitude. I would like to have your opinion on that. 

Mr. Wolf. Within five years? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes; convicted within five years. We do not 
propose to go beyond that term. 

Mr. Wolf. I was not aware, of course, that you had contemplated 
such a bill. It seems to me that a man coming from Russia or any 
other part of the world, thoroughly a good man in every way, who 
comes in contact with our American civilization and is to be punished 
for that coming into contact with it, and has imbibed some of the 
villainies of our lower classes, that he should be punished after being 
here within five years, is to me certainly very obnoxious and repug¬ 
nant to all my ideas of justice. 

Mr. Burnett. Do you not think that would be really to the interest 
of the good alien of the country, that they should be deported and 
gotten rid of ? 

Mr. Wolf. If you were going to use it in that sense, you could 
enlarge and do a great many other things. You might say that a 
woman coming here with her husband who proves unfaithful within 
five years and abandons her children should be deported, or the hus¬ 
band should be deported within five years if he does anything that 
leads to the destruction of the American home. You see that is legis¬ 
lation that cuts in many different directions. I am in favor of exclud¬ 
ing the criminal. I am in favor of excluding those persons of three 
years’ residence who have become inmates of public institutions. 
But that a man who within five years, under circumstances, possibly, 
that he could not prevent, should be deported when he was a per¬ 
fectly sane, sound man when he landed, I can not see the justice of. 

Mr. Burnett. These are crimes, understand, involving moral turpi¬ 
tude. 

Mr. Wolf. I understand, but there is no limit to those classes of 
cases. I would be much more in favor of deporting those who are 
born here and have had the benefit of all the good and great in our 
institutions, that we should have a reserved place to deport those to. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. Bennett. Inasmuch as we have reported that bill, Mr. Burnett, 
it seems to be the sense of some gentlemen on this side of the room, 
at least, as long as we have not much time, to limit the discussion to 
the bills that are now before us. 

Mr. Burnett. I was just asking for his opinion about it. 

Mr. Wolf. Gentlemen, I do not want to be the subject of criticism 
on the part of my colleagues. There are many valuable things to 
bring to your attention, and unless there is some other question to 
be answered I will give way. I thank you for your courtesy. 


280 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. O’Connell. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as Mr. Goldfogle has 
referred to the matter of illiteracy, as contemplated in the legislation 
asked for, I would like to call attention at this time to a communica¬ 
tion I have received from President Eliot, of Harvard University, 
which seems to cover the point very fully. He goes on to say: 

Cambridge, Mass., February 14, 1910. 

My Dear Sir: I beg leave to invite your attention to the following statement of the 
principles which should govern the national legislation on immigration: 

(1) Our country needs the labor of every honest and healthy immigrant who has the 
intelligence and enterprise to come hither. 

(2) Existing legislation is sufficient to exclude undesirable immigrants. 

(3) Educational tests should not be applied at the moment of entrance to the United 
States, but at the moment of naturalization. 

(4) The proper educational test is capacity to read in English or in the native tongue; 
not the Bible or the Constitution of the United States, but newspaper items in some 
recent English or native newspaper which the candidate can not have seen. 

(5) The attitude of Congress and the laws should be hospitable and not repellant. 

The only questions which are appropriate are, is he healthy, strong, and desirous 

of earning a good living? Many illiterates have common sense, sound bodies, and 
good characters. Indeed, it is not clear that education increases much the amount 
of common sense which nature gave the individual. An educational test is appro¬ 
priate at the time when the foreigner proposes to become a voting citizen. He ought 
then to know how to read. 

Very truly, yours, Charles W. Eliot. 

Hon. Jos. F. O’Connell, 

House of Representatives. 

(Other letters received by Representative O’Connell follow:) 

Notre Dame, Ind., February 26, 1910. 

The Hon. Joseph F. O’Connell, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Congressman O’Connell: In reply to your request for an expression 
of my views on the subject of immigration and naturalization, I desire to say that I 
am well pleased with the present laws relating to the exclusion of undesirable 
immigrants. 

I am not in favor of any educational test as applied to immigrants desiring to enter 
the United States, though an educational test is entirely proper before naturalization. 
It is not advisable to insist on ability to read the English language, however, before 
an immigrant can be naturalized. 

I am strongly in favor of excluding from this country all immigrants who profess 
the doctrines of anarchy. 

Very sincerely, yours, John Cavanaugh, C. S. C., 

President. 


The University of Chicago, 

February 28, 1910. 

Hon. Joseph F. O’Connell, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: Your favor of the 23d instant was received. I am not in favor of the 
restriction of immigration on the basis of the ability to read some European language. 
There is no doubt that the ability in question is desirable. At the same time, the 
conditions of workingmen in the old country and their conditions in our country are 
radically different. If they are industrious and honest and thrifty they will make 
useful citizens, and their children, having the opportunity of attending our free public 
schools, will acquire the needed education. In my opinion the requirements for 
naturalization ought to be made more strict, and at that point it might well be that 
an intelligence requirement should be embodied. A man should not become a 
citizen of this country and thereby, as under the laws of most of our States, entitled 
to the suffrage, unless he has a fair understanding of the nature of free government. 
Very truly, yours, 


Harry Pratt Judson. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


281 


Hon. Joseph F. O’Connell, 

House of Representatives. 


Georgetown University, 
Washington, D. C., February 28, 1910. 


Sir : Regarding the educational test as a means of restricting immigration, on which 
question there is an agitation to report out a bill, I beg leave to submit the following: 

(1) The educational test should be applied to the voter, not to the immigrant. 

(2) The laws restraining immigration are sufficiently drastic, and, if put into execu¬ 
tion, will safeguard the country. Those who have openly taught immorality and 
favored anarchy should be excluded rather than the illiterates. 

An illiterate artisan is not necessarily an ignorant or undesirable immigrant. Our 
whole past history proves that such men may serve the country in their proper sphere. 

Very truly, yours, 


Joseph Himmel, President. 


Cornell University, 

Ithaca, N. Y., March 4, 1910. 

Dear Sir: I have your communication of February 23, with the inclosed copy of 
the letter of ex-President Eliot, of Harvard University, on the subject of the admission 
of immigrants into the United States. 

I fully concur in the views expressed by President Eliot, and I do not think I can 
express them in clearer, more forcible, or appropriate language. 

Very truly, yours, 

J. G. Schurman. 

Hon. Joseph F. O’Connell, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 


Boston College, 
Boston, Mass., February 25,1910. 

Hon. Joseph F. O’Connell, 

Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Mr. O’Connell: I am pleased to know that you are a member of the 
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, because I think that you can render 
the country effective service. The proposed educational test seems to me to be a 
fatal mistake. 

(1) Does not the country need the toil of every intelligent, active, and moral worker 
who comes to us? 

(2) The proper time for the educational test is when the immigrant seeks to be 
naturalized. 

(3) Let existing legislation be enforced before new laws are enacted. The wise 
regulations already made, if enforced, would bar out undesirable subjects. 

(4) There are millions of acres in the West waiting for these farm-loving immigrants. 
I am sure that you will insist upon these truths. 

Ever yours, sincerely, T. I. Gasson, S. J. 

I have letters of the same tenor from President Schurman, of Cor¬ 
nell; from President Gasson, of Boston College; from the president 
of the University of Chicago; from the Rev. John Cavanaugh, the 
president of Notre Dame University; from Rev. Joseph Himmell, 
of Georgetown University. They are all more or less of the same 
tenor, and I believe I should not take the time of the delegation in 
having them read, but I will ask to have them put into the hearings 
and incorporated as part of this hearing. 

Mr. Bennet. Unless there is objection, it will be so directed. 

Mr. BufeNETT. I will ask, then, in the same connection, to have a 
statement that was filed with the Immigration Commission, made by 
the American consul at Messina, stating that he thought the educa¬ 
tional test was the only effective way of dealing with the question, 
attached to the hearing. 




282 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


(The statement follows:) 

After nearly thirteen years’ residence in Sicily, during which period I have tried to 
study the emigration question in all its phases, I have arrived at the conclusion that 
both Italy and America would benefit by its restriction; the fields of the former that 
now lie fallow, for lack of labor to cultivate them, would become productive, and the 
prisons and reformatories of the latter would not be overcrowded by a class of foreigners 
whose treacherous characteristics are such that a special arm of the detective service 
had to be created to keep them in check. It is said that the emigrant from upper Italy 
is sober, industrious, and makes a good citizen. I fear that the same can not be said 
of the one from Sicily or Calabria. The money he earns never sees the light of day 
after it finds its way to repose between the filthy linings of his leather wallet. His 
living expenses are about 40 cents a day, and the hogs in an American farmer’s pen are 
more cleanly in their surroundings and habits than are he and his dozen associates who 
huddle together in one room and exist like animals, not human beings. When the 
wallet is well swollen he puts the contents in a registered letter and sends it to his 
relatives here, who change it into Italian currency and deposit it in the post-office 
bank. * * * 

Sometimes instead of sending it he brings it himself. In that case he appears upon 
the scene with a flashy suit, a top hat, a filled chain, and a brass watch, and struts 
among his former associates—a second Gulliver, a giant among pigmies. In a few 
weeks he returns, having induced some of his friends to accompany him. Immigrants 
of other nationalities, even the Polish Jews, spend their money where they make it, 
but the Sicilian and the Calabrese never. The only persons to whom their advent is 
a benefit are those who employ them at a cheaper figure than they would have to pay 
for American labor. 

To at least check the constant rush of those people to our shores, I see but one remedy 
—the insertion of the illiteracy clause in the immigration law. This would oblige 
about 85 per cent of the class to devote their attention to the developing of the indus¬ 
tries of their own country, which sadly need the aid that we are only too glad to dis¬ 
pense with. 

STATEMENT OF CYRUS S. SULZBERGER, ESQ., OF NEW YORK 

CITY. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I want first to 
correct Mr. Wolf on the matter on which he did not have the data 
before him. I find by reference to the report of the Commissioner- 
General of Immigration that of the number of Hebrews over 14 years 
of age who could not read and write in the last year 16 per cent of 
males were included in that category and 30 females. 

Mr. Bennet. So that 16 per cent of the male Hebrews who came 
last year would have been excluded under a literacy test ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes. Before taking up the question generally, 
I want to call attention to an interesting point in connection with 
white slavery. 

Mr. Bennet. In connection with that, I would like to ask you, so 
as to resolve an apparent conflict, is it not a fact that most of the 
orthodox Jews have a knowledge of the Talmud, which might be 
called a literary qualification ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. I do not know, Mr. Bennet, whether they under¬ 
stand when they are asked whether they can read or write, if their 
ability to read the prayer book or the Talmud is such qualification, 
and they answer no when they are quite capable. I think the per¬ 
centage is larger than it should be, and that it is due to that cause. 

I desire to draw the attention of the committee to the reference in 
the report of the commissioner-general on page 117, dealing with the 
subject of white slaves. I. desire to point out that so far as white 
slavery and its attendant evils come to us by immigration, such 
immigration is only in very limited degree from Europe, but is 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


283 


chiefly from this continent. The total number of persons debarred 
from entering because of prostitution or procuring is 504. (Report of 
commissioner-general, 1909, pp. 80, 81.) Of this number 279 were 
from Mexico, who sent us 11,000 immigrants over 14 years of age, 

, and 225 were from the rest of the world, wdiich sent us 651,523 immi¬ 
grants over 14 years of age. (Commissioner-generaPs report, p. 22.) 
Of the 225 coming from Europe who were debarred, the distribution 
w r as as follows: 

French, 37, or 19 per 10,000 over 14 years. 

Scotch, 19, or 13.7 per 10,000 over 14 years. 

English, 39, or 11.7 per 10,000 over 14 years. 

Irish, 21, or 7.2 per l(f,000 over 14 years. 

German, 31, or 6.4 per 10,000 over 14 years. 

Dutch and Flemish, 4, or 6.3 per 10,000 over 14 years. 

Hebrew, 15, or 3.5 per 10,000 over 14 years. 

Italian, 22, or 1.3 per 10,000 over 14 years. 

It will thus be observed that so far as the European immigrant of 
this undesirable class is concerned, it is greatest among those classed 
by the restrictionists as desirable and least among those classed as 
undesirable. Furthermore, it is observable that the Hebrews and 
Italians (which of the Europeans have the largest percentage of 
illiterates) have the smallest percentage of these miscreants, while 
the French, Scotch, English, Irish, and German have a much larger 
percentage. It is also observable that the amount of money shown 
(commissioner-general’s report, p. 23) is least among the Hebrews 
and Italians and greatest among the others. It would therefore 
appear that so far as white slavery is concerned, neither the illiteracy 
of the immigrant nor his lack of funds has any bearing. 

I want now to direct your attention to the subject of criminality, 
and to call attention to an extraordinary blunder made in the report 
of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for the year 1904, in 
which, on page 59, he gives the total population of the United States 
as 75,994,575, and the total alien population of the United States as 
1,001,595. That is the report of the year 1904, referred to in the 
current report; the report for the year 1909 refers to the report for 
the year 1908; the report for the year 1908 refers back to this table 
in the report of 1904. I find, according to the census report of 1900, 
volume 1, part 1, page 209, that of male aliens there are 1,004,217; 
that is to say, there are more male aliens of voting age than the 
commissioner-general gives of total aliens. In addition thereto 
there are foreign-born persons as to whom it is not known whether 
they are alien or citizen, 748,506. Ignoring entirely all the female 
aliens of any age, and all the male aliens below voting age, we find 
that there were more male aliens of voting age than the total number 
of aliens upon which the whole table of statistics as to criminality 
and dependency is built up, and its use in 1904 is repeated in 1908 
and 1909. I have made some investigations on my own account upon 
this subject, and in view of the fact that there are 75 per cent as many 
persons of voting age- 

Mr. Bennet. Before you leave that point, could you, if it is not 
difficult, put in the record where that is ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Page 59 of the report of 1904. 

Mr. Bennet. Of the current report? 

Mr. Sulzberger. I haven’t the page, but I will have it in a moment. 

Mr. Bennet. Very well. 



284 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Sulzberger. Since there are 748,000 persons as to whom we do 
not know whether they are aliens or citizens, but we do know they are 
foreign born, it has seemed to me that it would be wiser to deal with 
the question of foreign born rather than with the question of citizen¬ 
ship, inasmuch as if the man is to become a dependent or a criminal, he 
is just as apt to become so if he has taken out his citizenship papers as 
if he has not. I find, then, dealing with foreign born rather than with 
aliens, in the special reports issued by the Census Bureau (United 
States Census Report on Prisoners and Juvenile Delinquents in Insti¬ 
tutions, 1904), it is said, on page 18: 

If the general population of all ages be taken, the basis for comparison will not be 
equitable for several reasons. Inmates of the general prisons are all at least 10 years of 
age and nearly all over 15. For the most part the immigrants are between 15 and 40 
years of age. The number of children under 10 years of age is extremely small among 
the white immigrants as compared with the native whites. In view of these facts, a 
comparison of the proportions of each nativity class in the white prison population 
with the corresponding proportions of the general population of all ages would clearly 
be unfair, for the inclusion of children under 10 years of age would so increase the pro¬ 
portion of native in the general population that it would seem as if crime were more 
prevalent among the foreign born as compared with the native white than is actually 
the case. Therefore children under 10 years of age are omitted, and the figures given 
for the population in Table 7 refer only to those at least 10 years of age. Even with this 
exclusion the figures are, on the whole, less favorable to the foreign-born white prisoners 
than the facts warrant, as no account could be taken of the large immigration between 
1900 and 1904. 

And on page 19 this report says: 

The figures presented above give little support to the belief that the foreign born 
contribute to the prison class greatly in excess of their representation in the general 
population. 

In the Census Report on Population, volume 2, pages 112 to 117, it 
appears that the total foreign-born population 15 to 19 years of age is 
563,527. The total foreign-born population being 10,460,085, we find 
that of the foreign-born persons, 5.4 were between 15 and 19 years of 
age, whereas of the foreign-born persons committed to prison during 
1904, 4.6 were from 15 to 19 years of age, showing that there were 
fewer persons from 15 to 19 years of age, foreign born, committed to 
prison than their percentage in the population. 

The Industrial Commission Report, volume 15, part 2, page 287, 
calls attention to the fact that criminality is 3 to 5 times greater 
in males than females, and that persons under 20 seldom commit 
crime. Taking, therefore, male persons 20 years of age and upward, 
we find by the 1900 census, Population, part 2, pages 112 to 116, that 
there are 26 per cent foreign-born whites and 74 per cent native-born 
whites 20 years of age and upward. Turning to the report on pris¬ 
oners, page 40, we observe that of the major offenders committed 
during 1904, 21.7 per cent were foreign born and 78.3 per cent native 
born, notwithstanding the fact that the percentage of foreign-born 
adult males is 26. That report says, on the same page: 

The foreign born do not contribute to the white major offenders above their repre¬ 
sentative in the general population at least 15 years of age, except in the two Southern 
divisions, where they are comparatively unimportant. In the Western division, and 
more especially in the North Central, the proportion of foreign born is considerably 
lower among the white major offenders than in the white general population. Among 
the white minor offenders the proportion of foreign born is generally higher than among 
the white major offenders, and in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Western 
divisions exceeds the proportion of foreign born in the general white population. In 
the North Central division the foreign born contribute 23.3 per cent of the general 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


285 


white population at least 15 years of age and only 21.3 per cent of the white minor 
offenders. From these figures, as well as from those for the prisoners enumerated on 
June 30, 1904, it is evident that the popular belief that the foreign born are filling the 
prisons has little foundation in fact. It would seem, however, that they are slightly 
more prone than the native whites to commit minor offenses. Possibly to some degree 
this is attributable to the fact that the foreign-born whites are more highly concen¬ 
trated in urban communities. 

Turning to New T ork State, which has the largest foreign popula¬ 
tion (Census Report, Population, vol. 2, pp. 112-116), we find that 
the number of males 20 years of age and upward in New York, native 
born, is 1,362,300; foreign born, 844,563, or native born 61.7 per 
cent and foreign born 38.3 per cent. In the Special Report on Pris¬ 
oners, page 18^ Table 7, we find that of the white prisoners enumer¬ 
ated in New York State on June 30, 1904, 68 per cent were native 
born and 32 per cent foreign born, the foreign born contributing, 
therefore, six thirty-eighths, or about 16 per cent less than their ratio 
in the community, and in view of the fact that 38.3 per cent of the 
adult male population of New York is foreign born, the statement 
made by the superintendent of prisons and quoted by Mr. Burnett 
(hearings, p. 41), as to 25 per cent of the prisoners in Sing Sing, 
Auburn, and Clinton, is favorable to the foreigners rather than other¬ 
wise. It must always be remembered, too, that the census figures are 
of 1900 and the report on prisoners of 1904, there being no allowance 
made for the number of foreigners who came into the country in those 
four years. 

Interesting, too, is the following from page 18 of the Special Report 
on Prisoners: 

Even the North Atlantic States, which have absorbed most of the late immigration, 
show a larger percentage of native prisoners than in 1890. It is evident therefore that 
the huge recent additions of foreigners to the population are not reflected in the prison 
returns in the degree the prison statistics of 1890 might have led one to expect. 

And on pages 19-20: 

Certain offenses, especially some comprehended under the general group “against 
society, ’ ’ are not crimes in the true sense of the word. For instance, no less than 4,701 
prisoners were sentenced for drunkenness, 2,773 for disorderly conduct (which is often 
only another term for drunkenness), 4,287 for vagrancy, and 709 for violating liquor 
laws, but it does not by any means follow that all these persons, or even a majority of 
them, should be described as criminals. 

There were, in 1890, 28.3 per cent foreign-born prisoners and 71.7 
per cent native born. Comparing this with the figures for 1904, we 
find that there were 23.7 per cent foreign born and 76.3 per cent 
native born, showing a decline of foreign-born prisoners between 
1890 and 1904—precisely those years that are coincident with the 
large immigration of the so-called undesirable classes. 

From page 14, “ Report on prisoners,” the following figures are 
taken: 

Number of prisoners per 100,000 population in 1890 and 1904 • 



1890. 

1904. 

Mpw York . 

191 

126 

Ppnn<svl vania .... 

123 

92 


102 

60 

If acccteh 11SP. f,ts ... 

233 

187 

XTpw Tpr^PV .... 

169 

131 























286 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


These 5 States, which have the largest proportion of immigrants, 
all show decreases, whereas substantial increases are shown in New 
Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia, Florida, Kansas, Wyoming, 
and Washington, where the immigrant population is small. 

In the hearing given by this committee Mr. Patten, a representa¬ 
tive of the Immigration Restriction League, spoke of the fact that 
21 per cent of the foreign-born prisoners were unable to read and 
write. I want to point out that this in itself shows nothing. 

Of the native-born prisoners, only 7 per cent were illiterates and 
93 per cent were literates, and the argument might be made that 
literacy causes crime. The fact is that the entire foreign population 
as shown by the statistics reported in the volume on prisoners is 
less prone to criminality than the native. Instead of its being true, 
as Mr. Patten says, that “ statistics show, as one would expect, that 
it is the illiterate who generally has criminal propensities/’ statistics 
show that of the more than 3,200,000 white illiterates in the whole 
country the total number of white illiterate prisoners was about 
6 , 000 . 

Therefore, to draw any wild inference as to illiteracy generally 
showing criminal propensities, is a mistake, not being borne out by 
the facts. 

Mr. Bennet. From what source do you take those last figures you 
quote ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. These are also from the census report, and this 
special report on prisoners. 

Mr. Patten also says, on page 69, that the literacy test is proposed 
merely as a means of sifting out the unassimilative elements. What 
constitute the unassimilative elements does not appear, but if the 
ability to read and write in the second generation is any test of 
assimilativeness, it would seem that all the foreign elements assimi¬ 
late without delay. We find bv the census report (Population, Part 
2, Table 10, p. 106) the following percentage of illiteracy: 



Native 
whites of 
native 
parents. 

Native 
whites of 
foreign 
parents. 

United States. 

5.7 

1.6 



North Atlantic. 

1.7 

1.5 

South Atlantic. 

12.0 

2.1 

North Central. 

2.8 

1.3 

South Central. 

11.6 

6.8 

W estern division. 

3.4 

1.3 



So that in every separate division the illiteracy is greater among 
native-born children of native parents than it is among native-born 
children of foreign parents. 

Mr. Burnett. That is from the census of 1900 ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. It is from the census of 1900, and I have already 
given the page. 

Mr. Bennet. And refers exclusively to white persons? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Refers exclusively to white persons, and it 
would seem, therefore, that the immigration raises our educational 
standards instead of degrading them. 














HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 287 

On page 50 of the hearings Mr. Patten quotes the report of the 
commissioner at Ellis Island as follows: 

Between these elements— 

The very bad—- 

and those that are a real benefit to the country, as so many of our immigrants are, 
there lies the class who may be called able to earn a living here but who in doing so 
tend to pull down our standards of living. 

These elements are presumably such as the commissioner-general 
in his report speaks of as “ economically undesirable,” and which 
under that heading are added to the excluded classes in the Elvins 
bill. I have seen no definition of what constitutes “an economically 
undesirable” immigrant, but I assume it to be one who arrives with¬ 
out much money and with a physique that would not qualify him 
for the United States Army, as is proposed also in the Elvins bill, 
and who is, to a considerable degree, illiterate. If that be the correct 
description, the average Jewish immigrant would probably fall under 
that heading. The conditions under which he has lived and from 
which he is fleeing have restricted his educational possibilities, his 
physical growth, and his accumulation of wealth. He comes here 
with a large percentage of illiteracy, a physical development some¬ 
what below our own and a depleted purse, and he shows a consider¬ 
able degree of illiteracy. Large numbers of such Jewish immigrants 
have arrived in this country since 1880. So far, however, from 
pulling down our standards of living, they have done the reverse. 

The men’s and women’s clothing industry is one which is almost 
exclusively in the hands of these immigrants, both as employers and 
employees, and gives us, therefore, an almost perfect illustration of 
their influence upon industry and their tendency to reduce or elevate 
the standard of living. We find by the Census Report on Manufac¬ 
tures (part 1, 1905, p. 234, Table 169) that while the product of all 
industries increased from $11,411,000,000 in 1900 to $14,802,000,000 
in 1905, an increase of 29.7 per cent, the clothing industry increased 
from $436,000,000 in 1900 to $604,000,000 in 1905, an increase of 
38.5 per cent; in other words, while in 1900 clothing formed 3.8 per 
cent of all industries, in 1905 it formed 4.1 per cent of all industries. 
Only last month a clothing manufacturer from New York returned 
from abroad, having established agencies in London, Paris, Berlin, 
Vienna, Brussells, and other cities for New York made clothing. 
This is the second or third manufacturer who has recently put Ameri¬ 
can-made clothing into European markets and in all likelihood a large 
foreign commerce in manufactured clothing, the product of immi¬ 
grant labor, will ensue. 

Mr. Adair. Let me ask a question right there. Do you know of 
your own knowledge whether the manufacturers insisted upon a 
tariff upon manufactured clothing for the purpose of protecting them 
from these people abroad ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Insisted upon what? 

Mr. Adair. The levying of a high tariff upon manufactured goods 
to protect them from these same people they are now competing 
with ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. I suppose they did; I am quite sure of this, 
that they will take advantage of the rebate provision in our tariff 


288 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION RILLS. 


law to enable them to get a reduction of the duty they paid. 
[Laughter.] 

Taking the Special Census Reports on Manufactures (part 1, 1905, 
pp. 164-168) we find that in the production of -1604,000,000 worth 
or clothing there was paid for wages to men the sum of $60,943,153, 
or an average of $601 per capita against an average earning of men 
in all industries of $534 per capita (same vol., p. 22) and to women 
$46,864,351, or an average of $317 per capita, as against $298 per 
capita earned by women in all industries. 

Mr. Burnett. Is that from the industrial commission’s report ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. No, sir ; from the census report of 1905 on manu¬ 
factures, the latest volume on that subject. Inasmuch as the 
147,000 women engaged in the clothing industry are earning 6 per 
cent more wages than women in all industries, and the 101,000 men 
engaged in this industry are earning 13 per cent higher wages than the 
men in all industries, it would seem so far as this industry is concerned, 
the industry almost monopolized by immigrant labor, as though 
immigrant labor were advancing rather than lowering the standard 
of living. Furthermore, between the census of 1880 and the census 
of 1905 we had the period of high immigration of the so-called 
“ undesirable classes.” In 1880 the average wages in all industries 
were $344; in 1905 they were $477, an advance of 39 per cent in the 
twenty-five years of high immigration. 

Mr. Bennet. Is it not a fact, Mr. Sulzberger, in connection with 
that, that the industry which used to be almost exclusively Jewish, 
the clothing industry- 

Mr. Sulzberger. Is now becoming Italian, but it is foreign just 
the same. Much concern is expressed about the cost to the country 
of maintaining foreign-born dependents. I do not suppose anybody 
will charge Mr. Prescott F. Hall, secretary of the Immigration Re¬ 
striction League, with being too friendly to the immigrants. I am 
going to read you an extract from his book, Immigration, commencing 
on page 67: 

In estimating the money value of the immigrant, attention may first be called to 
the fact that the bulk of our immigration is of the age of greatest productiveness; that 
is to say, this country has the benefit of an artificial selection of adults of working age. 
For example, in 1903, less than 12 per cent of all immigrants were under 14 years of 
age, leaving more than 83 per cent between the ages of 14 and 45. In other words, 
the expense of bringing up the bulk of our immigrants through childhood has been 
borne by the countries of their birth or residence, and this amount of capital therefore 
comes to us without expenditure. Professor Mayo-Smith refers to the frequently 
quoted estimate of Frederick Kapp that the cost of bringing up a child to the age of 
15 is $562.50 in Germany and $1,000 to $1,200 in the United States. Taking the value 
of the immigrant at $1,000 the immigration over 14 years of age in 1903 would have added 
$754,615,000 to the wealth of the United States if it had all remained in the country. 
A thoroughly conservative estimate is probably that of Mr. John B. Webber, formerly 
Commissioner of Immigration at the port of New York. He assumes that there were 
10,000,000 foreign born at the date of the Eleventh Census, and that 2,000,000 of these 
were working at an average wage of $lper day; and he points out that these persons 
added $600,000,000 per year to the earnings of this country. 

Taking these figures, we find that the immigration of a single year 
adds $754,000,000 to the wealth of the country by a saving in the 
cost of the upbringing of the immigrant and that the industrial 
activity of the immigrants adds $600,000,000 annually to the earnings 
of the country. In view of this statement we need not concern 
ourselves very much with the fact that a small percentage of immi¬ 
grants become dependents. That the amount of dependency among 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


289 


immigrants should be larger than among natives is perfectly natural; 
they are engaged in those occupations in which they are subjected to 
the risk of physical injury, and being in a strange land when they fall 
into distress, they lack: friends or relatives to care for them. 

In view of the fact that the immigrant brings in $750,000,000 as 
new capital, and adds $600,000,000 annually to the product of the 
country, it seems to me that what it costs to maintain those in public 
institutions, who may happen to fall into public institutions, becomes 
negligible. 

Another statement that has been made, quoted by Mr. Patten— 
frequently quoted—is that of Gen. Francis A. Walker, a statement 
quoted with approval by Mr. Prescott Hall, that the foreign immi¬ 
gration does not add to our population, but that it simply supplants 
native population; that when they come in by Ellis Island they do 
not come in by the natural route. Mr. Hall says in his book, on page 
117: 

In many of the older countries of Europe the birth rate has continued with full 
vigor. In the country from which there has been a considerable emigration, the 
birth rate immediately increased to such a degree the pressure of population is soon 
restored to its former condition. 

As a matter of fact, it is a universal symptom—there is not a single 
exception—that the birth rate nowhere increases, but almost every¬ 
where decreases. The Encyclopedia of Social Reform, of 1908, page 
117, gives a comparative statement of the birth rates in the various 
countries of Europe. 

(The table referred to is here printed in the record in full as follows:) 


Country 


Austria. 

Belgium. 

Denmark. 

England and Wales. 

France. 

Germany. 

Hungary. 

Ireland. 

Italy. 

Norway. 

Prussia. 

Scotland. 

Spain. 

Sweden. 

United Kingdom... 


1857-1899. 

1900. 

38.0 


30.1 

28.9 

31.3 

29.8 

32.3 

28.7 

23.7 

21.4 

37.2 

35.6 

42.9 j 

39.3 

23.8 

22.7 

36.6 

32.9 

30.7 

30.1 

37.7 

36.1 

32.2 

29.6 

<*35. 6 

34.4 

28.7 

26.9 

31.1 

28.2 


S. J. 1. 


1903 

35.0 

1903 

27.5 

1904 
29.2 
1904 
28.0 
1904 

20.9 
1904 
34.1 

1903 

36.6 

1904 

23.6 

1903 
31.5 

1904 

27.9 


1904 

28.6 

1902 

35.6 

1903 

25.7 


a 1888-1899. 


At the hearing on February 22, Mr. Gardner, of this committee, is 
quoted as saying: 

The greatest experiment in distribution that has been made was that made by the 
State of South Carolina. They received 762 immigrants from Berlin and Belgium 
and other places, and the result of that experiment was that within a year out of the 
762 immigrants all but 72 had disappeared from the State and had gone elsewhere. 


49090-10- 


-19 



























290 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Prescott F. Hall, in a recent letter, speaks of the distribution as 
being “a bluff on the part of the Jews and the steamship companies .” 

Mr. Bennet. Although, incidentally, Mr. Hall did not know the 
section of the law it was, and referred to it as section 26, when it was 
section 40. 

Mr. Sulzberger. That was not the only misstatement Mr. Hall 
.made. 

Both Mr. Hall and Mr. Gardner are mistaken. “The greatest 
experiment in distribution” was not made by the State of South 
Carolina, but by the Industrial Removal Office, of New York City, an 
organization with which I have the honor of being connected for the 
last nine years and of which for a considerable time I was the presi¬ 
dent, and its work is no bluff. According to the latest report of this 
office, there have been sent from New York 45,711 persons, of whom 
24,123 were breadwinners, the remainder being their wives and 
children. These 24,123 persons represented 221 occupations, and 
were sent to 1,278 cities and towns, and the 3,500 distributed in 1909 
were sent to 298 cities and towns. These persons have been dis¬ 
tributed to all parts of the United States, towns, and villages, as well 
as cities, and, according to the records of the office, 85 per cent of the 
breadwinners are engaged in gainful occupations at the places to 
which they were sent. 

Mr. Edwards. Were these immigrants sent to these towns and 
cities on a request of the towns and cities, or what is your manner ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Our manner is this: These persons are dis¬ 
tributed through the cooperation of friendly committees in the receiv¬ 
ing places, excepting where the receiving places are small. Where 
we send a larger number we have a reception committee, if I may 
so call it, to whom we send these people, not in response to imme¬ 
diate requisition, but from a general knowledge of the conditions as 
to what kind of working men they can use, and we send such classes 
of workingmen as may be useful in the particular community. 

Mr. Edwards. Then, taking a town or city of, say, 10,000, the 
committee there are the only ones who are consulted, and not the 
city itself, as to whether they are in need or desire these immigrants ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. I do not quite understand how one could con¬ 
sult the city excepting through a body of individuals there. The 
body of individuals we consult is the local committee we have. 

Mr. Edwards. About how large is that committee ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. From 3 to 5 or 7 persons, as the case may be. 

Mr. Edwards. Are the} generally connected with the city admin¬ 
istration ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Oh, no; these are public-spirited citizens of 
standing in the community, members of the Jewish community in 
the locality, who are interested in the work. You understand, this 
work is confined to the distribution of Jewish immigrants. 

Mr. Edwards. Do they take any steps to ascertain whether the 
city desires these immigrants or not before they make the request ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. They know perfectly well that they are able to 
place them; otherwise they would not ask us to send them. You 
readily see that if they were to load themselves up with persons for 
whom no work was findable, they would have upon their shoulders 
the moral responsibility and the actual responsibility of caring for 
those people and making dependents of them. I have come in con- 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


291 


tact with many philanthropic persons in the course of my work, hut 
I have not found them so philanthropic that they advertise for trouble 
in that precise fashion. 

Mr. Edwards. In what sections of the country do you find the 
greatest demand for these immigrants ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. In 1909 we sent 3,504 breadwinners, of whom 
33 went to the New England States, to 11 cities; 401 to the Middle 
Atlantic States, 78 cities; 254 to the Southern States, 51 cities; 2,123 
to the Central States, 126 cities; 680 to the Rockv Mountain and 
Pacific States, to 32 cities; and 13 to Canada, to 3 cities. 

Mr. Edwards. May I ask what you mean by “breadwinners ? ” 

Mr. Sulzberger. People who are competent to engage in gainful 
occupations. 

Mr. Edwards. Able to earn their living by manual labor? 

Mr. Sulzberger. I happen to have here the occupations of the 
24,000 who were distributed between 1902 and 1909. They were 
engaged in 221 occupations; 9.97 in wood working; 9.17 in metal 
working, all classified here according to the various branches of metal 
and wood working. 

Mr. Burnett. Do you mean those were the occupations they 
engaged in after they reached their destinations ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. No, these were their trades when they sent them 
away. 

Mr. Edwards. How many of them were engaged in merchandizing? 

Mr. Sulzberger. We will get to it in a moment. I have the 
whole statement here. Eight hundred and thirteen in the building 
trades; 0.93 in printing and lithography; 20.86 in the needle indus¬ 
tries, clothing, and millinery supplies; 6.99 in leather; 0.77 in 
tobacco; 1.95 in miscellaneous, such things as album makers, bed¬ 
spring makers, bristle workers, being only a few of a kind; 1.52 non¬ 
manufacturing—barbers, bartenders, bottlers, canvassers, cleaners, 
dyers, cooks, domestics, firemen, and so forth; men without trades, 
31.65. 

Mr. Bennet. Of 1 per cent ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. 31.65, being in numbers 7,637. Of that num¬ 
ber 7,328 were unskilled laborers and 309 were peddlers. That is 
the question you put to me awhile ago. 

Mr. Edwards. Three hundred and nine? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes. 

Mr. Edwards. Out of a total of how many ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Out of a total of 24,123. 1.74 farming; 3.36 

small dealers in foodstuffs, bakers, brewers, butchers, confectioners, 
distillers, and so forth, making the number 809, out of 24,000. 3.6 

is office help, professional, and so forth. 

Mr. Edwards. In a great many towns, especially in rural districts 
to the South, it is very common of late years to have a bunch of 
peddlers, running from three to perhaps as many as a dozen, dropping 
into a little town, and immediately follows a lot of cheap goods; and 
they always have a correspondent or a backer in New York City on 
whom they can draw, and from whom they have letters of recom¬ 
mendation and credit to the bank; and they engage in this peddling 
business over the country for a few months, and then all at once they 
disappear and settle down in another place. I would like to know 
if that class of immigrants have any connection with this distribu- 


292 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


tion that you speak of or if your distribution has anything to do 
with that class ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. No; our distribution has nothing to do with 
this class. I said awhile ago that of the breadwinners whom we 
sent away 85 per cent are engaged at the places to which we sent 
them. Of the remaining 15 per cent some go to other places, about 
3 per cent drift back to New York, 12 per cent get to other places 
and into other occupations, some of those, no doubt, into peddling. 
I have no knowledge about that, because after we have lost sight of 
them in the place in which we originally place them we do not know 
what has become of them, but we do know—we have the records to 
demonstrate—that 85 per cent of them are engaged at the job in 
which we succeeded in getting them occupation. 

Mr. Edwards. It is true you did send out three hundred and some 
odd peddlers whom you knew to be peddlers when you sent them? 

Mr. Sulzberger. They were qualified to be peddlers and nothing 
else, apparently. 

Mr. Edwards. They engaged in this occupation with the pack on 
their shoulders, carrying it through the country? 

Mr. Sulzberger. A perfectly decent and honorable occupation. 

Mr. Edwards. I am not questioning it at all. 

Mr. Sabath. Would it be possible for any of these new arrivals, 
not familiar with the English language, to go through these various 
States or districts that the gentleman refers to and sell any goods 
without being acquainted with the English language ? 

Mr. Edwards. I will say, in answer to the gentleman, that we 
have some Syrians through the South who do not have to be in this 
country very long before they can go out through the country and 
sell goods. Some of them are very nice gentlemen, too. 

Mr. Adair. I would like to ask this question as to this particular 
point: Has your association or organization made any special effort 
along the line of inducing immigrants to engage in farming; and if 
so, what success have you met with along that line ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. This organization was originally a branch of the 
Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society, of which for a num¬ 
ber of years I was president, and I am now on the board of directors. 
That society engages in placing Jews upon farms. I do not like to 
speak of figures without having the figures before me, so I will not 
mention figures at all. 

Mr. Adair. In a general way, what has been the success ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. My friend Mr. Cutler, here, will be in a position 
to tell you something about the abandoned farms of New England 
which the Jews have made to flourish once more, and we have farmers 
in pretty nearly every State in the United States. We began a year 
ago the publication of the Yiddish Farmer, a farm journal in the 
Yiddish language, which has a subscription list, although it is only 
a year old, that many older established papers would be glad to 
have—a paid subscription list—and the Jewish farmer is in every 
respect able to hold his own along with any other, and is showing a 
very strong tendency and desire to get to the farm. I received only 
this week, from Doctor Sauls, in Chicago, whom Mr. Sabath will 
know- 

Mr. Sabath. And Doctor Levy, who has devoted nearly his entire 
time to this work. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


293 


Mr. Sulzberger. In addition to the society with which I am con¬ 
nected, there is a similar society in Chicago, the American Agricul¬ 
tural Aid Society, and it does similar work. 

Mr. Moore. You might tell them also of Doctor Krauskopf. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Doctor Krauskopf is conducting a farm school, 
where he is turning out trained agriculturists, and the Baron de 
Hirsch fund has a similar school at Woodbine, N. J., where they are 
conducting a similar work; also turning out trained agriculturists. 
The Government has taken from that school a large number of 
experts for its agricultural service all over the country. There is 
a greater tendency toward farming on the part of the Jewish people 
than there has ever been before. 

Mr. O’Connell. Will you tell me this: What is the disposition on 
the part of immigrants to accept suggestions from your committee 
as to where they should go ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. As a rule a man who comes here, and to whom 
one section of the country is like another, is naturally perfectly 
indifferent. Sometimes he comes to us and says, “I have a friend 
in Omaha. Will you send me there?” And if there is no reason 
why we should not, we are perfectly willing to do as he prefers. 
But as a rule a man who comes here is a stranger, to whom Omaha 
and Oskaloosa are alike, and he is quite indifferent as to where we 
send him. 

Mr. O’Connell. What I am driving at is this: Do you find on the 
part of the newly arrived immigrants a desire to accept the judg¬ 
ment of your committee as to what is the best place for them to go ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Surely, we do find that. 

Mr. O’Connell. That is widely spread among them ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes. 

Mr. Burnett. As I understand this distribution you refer to, 
your organization made a distribution of about 3,500 during the last 
fiscal year ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Thirty-five hundred during the last calendar 
year. 

Mr. Burnett. That is, your association. Is that any argument 
in favor of the Government making any such organization ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Surely; I was just coming to that. 

Mr. O’Connell. I would like to say, for the benefit of those who 
may possibly feel that they are obliged to leave before the hearings 
are concluded, that the interests of the Hebrew immigrant have been 
most splendidly protected by the consistent efforts of Judge Gold- 
fogle and Judge Sabath. Both these gentlemen have shown them¬ 
selves at all times warm, sincere friends of the immigrant, and their 
intelligent efforts to prevent any hostile legislation have been a source 
of gratification to every friend of liberal immigration on this com¬ 
mittee. Nothing that can be said here to-day can improve upon 
their efforts. I am sure that every member of the committee will 
agree with me that we have been helped very materially by the con¬ 
stant and sincere attention which Judge Goldfogle and Judge Sabath 
have given to the hearings of the committee. 

(Thereupon, at 11.55 o’clock a. m., the committee took a recess 
until 2 o’clock p. m.) 


294. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


AFTER RECESS. 

At the expiration of the recess the committee resumed its session, 
with the following present: Representatives Bennet, O’Connell, Kiis- 
termann, Sabath, Burnett, Moore, of Pennsylvania, Goldfogle, Moore, 
of Texas, and Adair. Mr. Bennet presided. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CYRUS L. SULZBERGER—Continued. 

Mr. Bennet. You may proceed, Mr. Sulzberger. 

Mr. Sulzberger. You asked me this morning where, in the cur¬ 
rent report, reference was made to the table of statistics based on the 
blunder of which I spoke. On page 6 of the report of the Commis¬ 
sioner-General of Immigration for 1909 this appears: 

When the penal, reformatory, and charitable institutions of the country were can¬ 
vassed in 1908, a number of interesting and significant facts were disclosed. On this 
subject the following is quoted from last year’s report (pp. 96 and 97): 

“The last investigation of this kind was made in 1904. (See pp. 48-76 of annual 
report for that year.)” 

That covers the page from which I quoted this morning. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania, desires to ask you some 
questions, Mr. Sulzberger. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Very well. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvanai. I would like to ask you to state the 
name of the association to which you referred this morning—the one 
you represent. 

Mr. Sulzberger. In the distributing work? 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Yes. 

Mr. Sulzberger. The Industrial Removal Office, of New York. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Is that organization sustained by 
voluntary contributions ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. That organization is sustained by the funds of 
Baron de Hirsh, who left a large fund for the amelioration of the con¬ 
dition of the Russian and Roumanian Jews. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Is the Woodbine Colony, of New 
Jersey, under your direction ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. No; it is not under the direction of this office; 
but it is also sustained out of the same general fund. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I happen to live in a congested part 
of the city of Philadelphia. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. You have given very great attention 
to the question of distributing immigrants of the Jewish faith ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. It has been stated before this com¬ 
mittee that the tendency of the Jew immigrant is to remain in the 
congested centers and that lie fails to distribute himself over the coun¬ 
try, particularly in that he fails to take up agricultural pursuits or 
those outside of the congested centers. I want to know whether you 
have, beyond what you said this morning, found it possible to amelio¬ 
rate this condition, if it is objectionable, in the large cities ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Our experience in New York, as Judge Goldfogle 
and Mr. Bennet know, is that whereas a few years ago we had one 
Jewish quarter, we now have many. The Jews who come to us from 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


295 


Russia have a natural tendency to live together, because they wish 
to live where their language is spoken. But they do not all live in 
one part of the city by any means. We have a large Jewish settle¬ 
ment on the lower East Side, we have a large Jewish settlement in 
Harlem, we have a large Jewish settlement in the Bronx, and several 
large Jewish settlements in Brooklyn. I believe that the amount of 
congestion on the lower East Side of New York is to-day less than 
it was eight or ten years ago because of this spreading. The same 
thing is true about the Italians. They have spread over various 
settlements, instead of being concentrated in one. 

Mr. Burnett. You mean settlements in the same citv? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. But they do take to the farm quite 
extensively ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes; the Italians do. 

I want to call attention to a matter in connection with the conges¬ 
tion that is generally overlooked, and that is this: While in the large 
cities there is always a state of more or less congestion, the persons 
involved are not the same persons. In other words, a man who comes 
to the city of New York and who settles down on the lower East Side 
stays there three or four or five years. After the lapse of a few years 
he moves on and comes up into the Harlem settlement. From there 
he goes to the Bronx, and presently he is on Fifth avenue. 

Mr. Bennet. In other words, as he becomes better to do he moves 
out of Mr. Goldfogle’s district and up to mine \ 

Mr. Sulzberger. Precisely; and changes from a Democrat to a 
Republican. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Goldfogle. You are usually correct, but in this instance I 
think you aFe incorrect. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I know that Mr. Bennet is very 
proud of the Jews who live in his district, and certainly Judge Gold¬ 
fogle is very proud of those who live in his; and there has been no 
disagreement, so far as I have observed, as to their politics or nation¬ 
ality. I want to ask you what you do, in your benevolent work, 
toward inducing these unfortunate people who come from Russia to 
accommodate themselves to the conditions that prevail in this coun¬ 
try. That is to say, what you do toward having them naturalized, 
and making them better understand the laws and conditions that 
prevail here, which we assume do not sometimes prevail in Russia? 

Mr. Sulzberger. On that subject Mr. Marshall, one of the directors 
of the Educational Alliance, will give you far more precise informa¬ 
tion than I can, because that falls within the scope of the work he is 
engaged in. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. You, yourself, would not encourage 
a continuance for a longer period of time than is advisable, of the 
publication of newspapers in the Jewish language in the United 
States, or the continuance of this concentration which means the 
keeping up of the customs of the old country, with the quiet teach¬ 
ings of rebellion, at least, against the law ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. I would like to have the question read to me. 

(The reporter repeated Mr. Moore’s question.) 

Mr. Sulzberger. So far as the foreign newspapers are concerned r 
there is the Staats-Zeitung, in New York, for example, which has 
been going on for I do not know how long, and which was founded by 


296 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Oswald Ottendorfer, and conducted by Herman Ridder. While I do 
not read it, I do not know but that it has as much influence for good 
in the community as any newspaper that is printed there. I do not 
read it, and so, of course, do not know. 

Mr. Goldfogle. It certainly has. 

Mr. Sulzberger. I say, I do not read it, and I do not know. 
Neither do I read the Yiddish newspapers, and so I do not know 
about that. 

Mr. Moore of Pennsylvania. I am not taking sides in the matter. 
I am merely asking you your opinion, and am seeking information, 
valuing your opinion as a matter of information. 

Mr. Sulzberger. As to whether the foreign newspapers should be 
continued ? 

Mr. Bennet. Not that, as I understand it, more than as an inci¬ 
dent; but whether, in your judgment, a condition in which these peo¬ 
ple do not Americanize ought to be continued, or whether a condition 
ought to be encouraged in which they will Americanize ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. They Americanize so fast that you can not hold 
them back. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Moore was asking your opinion as to whether that 
ought to be so or not. 

Mr. Sulzberger. You can not prevent their Americanization. 
They go along at the most wonderful rate. So far as their reading 
foreign newspapers is concerned, it does not seem to me that that at 
all interferes with their Americanization. A man’s thought may 
be thoroughly sympathetic with our American thought, and yet he 
may express it in another language. I do not know why a man who 
reads a German newspaper or an Italian newspaper or a Yiddish 
newspaper should not think' along American lines as •well as if he 
expresses himself in the English language. 

I want to read a letter written by a Hebrew lad of 13 years, who 
had been only six months in the country. It was written in school 
under the eye of the teacher, who handed it to me as a marvelous 
production; and I think it is. 

(The letter follows:) 

Only a man that was born in Russia and lived there can have the right idea of the 
great difference between living here and in Russia. To have the right idea of it, 
I’ll write how my friend lived in Russia and how he lives here now. 

My friend was a man who lived in a land where he had no liberty. This country 
was Russia. He could only live in certain parts of his native land, and even in those 
parts he could not live in the country, but had to reside in the gloomy, small, and 
unhealthy towns. None of the high careers of life was open to him. He could not 
become a doctor or a lawyer or a professor. He could not be an officer in the army, 
though he was obliged to serve in it. He could not send his children to good schools, 
and he could not even worship God in the way in which he had been taught by his 
father. Whatever he did, he had to get permission of the police to allow him to do, 
and very often he had fo pay the policeman for the permission. Whenever he gained 
any money the police would be sure to find it out and get some of it from him by 
threatening to interfere with his liberty. Therefore it is no wonder that he regarded 
the Government of his own country as his natural enemy and every policeman as a 
master whom he must obey. 

Now, my friend was fortunate enough to get away from his fatherland and come to 
this country where all is freedom. He can dress as he likes, do what he likes, and 
worship God in his own way, providing that he does not interfere with the lawful 
doings of his fellow-citizens. Instead of trying to thwart him on every step, the 
Government of his new country tries to make it easy for him in every way to be a 
good citizen. The police instead of being his masters are his servants, ready to help 
him in all that is lawful. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


297 


So my friend thought to himself how best to prove his gratitude to the new country 
which had treated him so well. “I will try,” said he to himself, “to imitate whatever 
is good in the lives of my new fellow-citizens, to show how proud I am that I belong 
to them and how much I enjoy the new liberty that I have gained. I will no longer 
hate the Government, but obey its commands willingly, since I am sure they are 
laid down for the good of all of us. The policeman I will no longer regard as an enemy, 
but as a friend and do his biddings as I would follow any piece of friendly advice. 
My children I will teach what an advantage it is to live in this land as compared 
with the one in which I was brought up. In this way I shall love this land, and my 
gratitude and very love shall be the return for the kind treatment we receive here.” 

1 wish that all that suffer there should become so fortunate and happy as my friend. 
But at the same time I wish that Russia shall get on the way of progress and succeed 
and to be able to compare itself with every civilized and well-governed country in the 
world, so that its citizens should not be compelled to come here to find liberty, which 
they will then find in their own country, in Russia. 

Paul Gendel. 

January 18, 1906. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. That is a very remarkable and illu¬ 
minating letter, especially in view of the fact that it was written by a 
child of that age. 

Mr. Sulzberger. That lad was 13 years of age, and had only been 
six months in this country. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Yesterday afternoon Mr. Bennet, of 
New York, the acting chairman, described the conditions as he found 
them in Washington while acting as a member of the Immigration 
Commission of the United States; and I asked him then in regard to 
the sentiments of the Jews in Russia, who congest there very much 
as they do here, presumably for reasons of protection; and he said 
there was to some extent a spirit of quiet resistance to authority. 

Mr. Bennet. In Russia? 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. In Russia; yes. Which, from the 
viewpoint of anyone who seeks information upon the subject and 
who understands the conditions that prevail there, would be wholly 
justifiable. I am endeavoring to ascertain from you whether you do 
anything, with regard to these immigrants who come with that feeling 
of impatience at the intolerance of the government under which they 
have lived, in the way of attempting to change that inborn spirit 
when they arrive in this country and again concentrate here. 

Mr. Sulzberger. That spirit does not come here with them when 
they come here. There is no reason for our doing anything to en¬ 
deavor to counteract that spirit. It no longer exists when they arrive 
here. Here they are loyal, law-abiding citizens. There is no cause 
for our doing anything to endeavor to counteract any spirit of anarchy. 

Mr. Bennet. Possibly I can illustrate that to my colleague by a 
story from actual experience. There were a mother and her two 
daughters who were driven from Odessa, as the result of one of their 
“ pogroms.” The son lived in my district. He sent them money and 
everything. As soon as they escaped their house was burned and 
their furniture was destroyed, and they crossed the Russian frontier 
in a very wretched condition. He sent them money as soon as they 
could communicate with him, and they came to the United States. 
They were detained at Ellis Island because one of the daughters was 
clearly inadmissible. He fixed up a very pleasant flat for them 
up town, and went down to see them, and he apologized to his mother 
for having to leave her in the detention quarters at Ellis Island. She 
said, “You do not have to apologize. This country is better than 


298 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Russia.’’ So that is the feeling they bring with them, that §ven a 
jail, to that extent, in the United States is better- 

Mr. Sulzberger. Than their freedom, which is a jail. 

Mr. Bennet (continuing). That the freedom of a jail is better than 
the terror of the alleged freedom in Odessa. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Still seeking information, and merely 
for the purpose of obtaining your opinion, I call your attention to 
the fact there have been some strikes recently in this country, strikes 
of those whom you classed a little while ago amongst the Jews who 
were engaged in one very large industry—that of making clothing, 
making shirt waists, etc. There was a large strike, a general strike, 
of the shirt-waist makers. There is another large strike on in my 
city now, a very serious one. It is sometimes complained that the 
trouble is accentuated and encouraged through the lack of knowledge 
upon the part of the newly arrived foreign born, of existing laws and 
conditions of the country, and that some of the feeling of resistance 
which comes from the oppression abroad crops out in this country, 
and thus makes unnecessary trouble for the law-making body and 
for the constituted authority, and tends to encourage a socialistic 
spirit here. I wanted to ask whether you, in your association, which 
is philanthropic and benevolent and extremely useful, had ever given 
consideration to this question? 

Mr. Sulzberger. So far, Mr. Moore, as the recent shirt-waist strike 
in New York is any indication, there were there, if the newspapers 
are to be trusted, some 30,000 persons out on strike. It was, in the 
main, a strike that was conducted without any defiance of law. So 
far as the records show there were a number of arrests made, it was 
claimed, for picketing, and for obstructing the highways in the course 
of picketing; but apart from that, a kind of scratching and pinching 
picketing- 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Yes. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Which was incidental- 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. It was characteristic. 

Mr. Sulzberger. That was incidental to the fact that the strikers 
were ladies. [Laughter.] Apart from that there does not seem to have 
been any violation of the law that is at all commensurate with what 
is going on in the city of Philadelphia at the present time. I read in 
last evening’s paper a list of indictments that have been found by the 
grand jury in connection with the present Philadelphia strike, and I 
noticed with a good deal of interest that the preponderance of the 
names, so far as names are an indication, are of the Anglo-Saxon 
type and not of the foreign type. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I am free to admit that very many 
Anglo-Saxon names have appeared in the list of those who have been 
arrested, but there have been quite a number of foreign names. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Undoubtedly there have. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. There have been a number of arrests 
due, in my judgment, to ignorance of the law and of the conditions 
that prevail in this country and perhaps to a lack of proper teaching 
or training upon the part of somebody who might have led these 
people in a different direction and might have separated them in 
some such way as to have relieved the authorities of the pain of 
putting down an insurrection. 





HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


299 


Mr. Sulzberger. I am rather inclined to think that it is due to 
the contagious mob spirit which affects all human beings alike, and 
has all through history, when a number of men get to walking together 
shoulder to shoulder. It is a spirit that is in all men, no matter how 
perfect they may be or what conditions they have lived under. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Is it not reasonable to suppose that 
if the immigrants newly arrived in this country, which is vast in its 
area, were scattered somewhat and scattered over sections where they 
might be useful in agriculture or in other pursuits, and deprived of 
the daily and nightly intercourse which simply reminds them of the 
old conditions that prevailed in Russia, it might be better for us all ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. That depends on whether the growth of cities 
is an advantage or a disadvantage. The greatness of the city of 
New York has been brought about by its immigrant population. If 
we had no immigrant population in New York perhaps it might be 
better upon some sides, but it might be worse upon other sides. That 
is a large question to decide here. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Is it not a fact that your work, as 
the representative of a great benevolent society, and that of these 
distinguished gentlemen here to-day, many of whom I know and 
appreciate and value highly, and of such organizations as the United 
Hebrew Charities of my city—a most creditable thing—would be 
much less, and that your expenses would be reduced, if you could 
induce the newly-arrived immigrants to separate and to go into 
other sections of the country rather than to remain in the alleys and 
by ways of the city ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Undoubtedly if there were no Jews in New 
York who could be removed to the country the Industrial Removal 
Office would go out of business; and undoubtedly, too, if there were 
no poor Jews in New York and Philadelphia, the United Hebrew 
Charities of those cities would go out of business. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And your responsibility would be 
less. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And therefore you would approve of 
such instruction and distribution if it could be effected? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Within limits. 1 would by no means approve 
of sending all of the Jews, or all of the immigrant Jews, of New 
York out of there. I am an immigrant—not an alien immigrant— 
but an immigrant from Philadelphia. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Just now you might very well have 
some of them sent elsewhere. 

Mr. Sulzberger. I should not like myself to be sent from New 
York. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. No; because you have made that 
your home and you have succeeded there. 

Mr. Sulzberger. But, do you not see, Mr. Moore, hundreds of 
thousands of men have made it their home. When I arrived in New 
York I had what was left out of $25, after paying my railroad fare 
from Philadelphia to New York. I have succeeded in making good 
to a reasonable extent. Hundreds of thousands have come from 
Europe who have made good in the same way, and it would have been 
a fatal blunder to have sent all these men oil on the farms or to other 


300 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


parts, when they were fitted to work out and have worked out their 
salvation and economical success, and have done it right there in the 
city of New York. I appreciate the difficulties and dangers of con¬ 
gestion. I do not suppose that any man appreciates them any more 
than I, because I have spent a great deal of time in the study of that 
matter, but we must not get hysterical about it, because those men 
who have gathered there have made that city great, and are making it 
greater day by day. It is the greatest city in the country to-day, 
and in a short time it will be the greatest city in the world. If you 
say to the immigrant population that it must no more go there, but 
must scatter through various parts of the United States, it would be 
good for the various parts of the United States, but it would be bad 
for New York. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I am somewhat glad to hear you say 
that, because I have done everything that one Representative in Con¬ 
gress could do to have some of that immigration come to my city of 
Philadelphia. It seems to me a wise thing to have it distributed 
along the coast. 

Mr. Burnett. I would like to ask you- 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I want to ask you, before Mr. Burnett 
takes up his question- 

Mr. Burnett. It is along that same line. I would like to know 
the proportion in New York City of alien population. First, the 
number ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. I do not know it, and I would not like to guess 
at it. I could look it up in the census report, but I do not happen to 
have it here. 

Mr. Bennet. It would be incorrect now, anyway. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes; because that was in 1900, and it would be 
10 years old. There must be 38 per cent, in New York State, foreign 
born—you mean that, too ? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Thirty-eight per cent foreign born in New York 
State, and there must be over 50 per cent in the city of New York. 

Mr. Bennet. I can contribute this fact. The city is divided into 
police precincts. In each police precinct in old New York the 
majority of the heads of families are foreign born. That was the 
information up to within the last year. 

Mr. Burnett. But that does not mean Greater New York. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Manhattan and the Bronx. 

Mr. Burnett. Have you any idea as to what it is in Greater New 
York, Mr. Bennet? 

Mr. Bennet. I would not want to say that with attempted 
accuracy, because I have no statistics since 1900. 

Mr. Burnett. Is it a fact, Mr. Sulzberger, that there are many of 
those people in the settlements where the foreigners are congested, 
who have been here for years and have not learned to speak English ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. I do not believe that is a fact. I do not know, 
but I do not believe that is a fact. That there are some I have no 
doubt, but when you say “many" I do not believe that is the fact. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. May I answer that, for your infor¬ 
mation ? 

Mr. Burnett. Certainly. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


301 


Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. There are communities in Pennsyl¬ 
vania known as the Pennsylvania Dutch, who have been there for 
two hundred years, and who still speak the foreign language. 

Mr. Burnett. But they can speak English? 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Oh, no. 

Mr. Sulzberger. No. 

Mr. Burnett. But English is taught in the schools, is it not ? 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. They are the native-born people, on 
the farms. 

Mr. Burnett. Does not your State require the English language 
to be taught in the schools ? 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Oh, yes; in the public schools. 

Mr. Burnett. Do they not go to the schools ? 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Yes; they go to the public schools. 

Mr. Burnett. Do they not learn English there ? 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. You have me as to that. 

Mr. Adair. I would like to ask a question in this connection. 
What effort, if any, does your society make toward inducing immi¬ 
grants of your nationality to learn as quickly as possible the English 
language and to read the English newspapers ? I am mentioning this 
for this reason: It occurs to me that one of the first duties devolving 
upon an immigrant is, if possible, to learn to speak the English 
language and to read the English language, and it occurs to me that 
it would be time well spent if your societies would ecnourage the 
reading and speaking of the English language and the reading of the 
English newspapers. Do you not believe that is one of the duties 
that they owe to this Government, as English-speaking people ? 
Do you not believe that a foreigner coming here owes it as a duty to 
this country to learn, if possible, to speak the English language and 
to read the English language? The point I am getting at is this: 
If, for instance, a large percentage of immigrants of your nationality 
are able to read both in English and in your own language, do you 
not think it is well to encourage them in reading the English news¬ 
papers rather than newspapers printed in your own language? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Let me set you straight. Yiddish is not our own 
language. English is my language, and the language of most of my 
associates. 

Mr. Adair. But you understand what I am getting at. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes. Yiddish is one of the languages of the 
immigrants; but the immigrant frequently speaks Russian, German, 
or some other language, as well. 

Mr. Goldfogle. At this point: Is it not a fact that in the city of 
New York a large number of foreigners go, very soon after their 
arrival in this country, to the evening schools ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. I was just going to speak of that. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Is it not a fact that they go to the evening schools, 
of which there are many in our city, and that they very soon acquire 
a knowledge of the English language, of writing and reading, and 
become acquainted with the use of English within a comparatively 
short time after they arrive ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. That is quite true, Judge Goldfogle; and in addi¬ 
tion to that Mr. Marshall will deal with that subject, I have no doubt, 
because he is more competent than I to speak of it, and it comes 


302 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


within the scope of the work lie is doing along educational lines in 
that direction. 

Mr. Goldfogle. When I speak of the foreigners going to the 
evening schools, I have reference to foreigners who work during the 
day. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Adult foreigners. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Yes; laborers, and other wage-earners who go to 
the night schools and spend their evenings there and acquire a knowl¬ 
edge of English. 

Mr. Sulzberger. They acquire a remarkable knowledge of Eng¬ 
lish; and the children, mark you, after being in school less than six 
months write English as well as do the native Americans. 

Mr. Adair. The point I was making was, whether or not it was a 
good idea- 

Mr. Sulzberger. It is done to the utmost. Not only that, but I 
want to say that the records of the Carnegie Library on the lower 
East Side of New York shows the largest percentage of high-class 
literature read from that branch of any library in the city of New 
York. I am sorry I did not bring with me the library statistics upon 
that point; but I did not think the hearing would take that turn. 

Mr. Kustermann. I would like to say that I am trying to encour¬ 
age my children to read the German papers instead of the English 
papers, because they have a pretty fair education in English, and I 
do want them to continue the German. 

Mr. Adair. That is all right. 

Mr. Kustermann. I do not believe there is any harm at all in the 
children continuing the language of their parents. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Of course the children of English 
parents are now studying the Spanish language ? 

Mr. Adair. This is what brought it to my mind. Not long since 
I was in a grand lodge meeting of a certain secret society, and the 
question came up as to whether the ritual of the society should be 
printed in various languages, English, German, and all along the 
line. There was one German, Mr. Kustermann, who was one of 
the most entertaining and most intelligent gentleman I ever listened 
to, who took the floor and made a very strong appeal against print¬ 
ing the Knights of Pythias ritual in any other than in the English 
language. 

Mr. Kustermann. That was perfectly proper. 

Mr. Adair. And he said in his argument that he believed the first 
and foremost duty a German owed to this country in coming here 
was to learn to speak and to read the English language, and that he 
came to this country to do that. 

Mr. Kustermann. It is one of the rules, is it not, that they must 
speak English in the Knights of Pythias ? 

Mr. Adair. No; that is not the rule at all. 

Mr. Kustermann. But they could not understand the proceedings 
if they did not ? 

Mr. Adair. The strongest argument in favor of printing the ritual 
in one language was made by this German, this man born in Germany, 
who had come to this country; and he made the strongest plea for 
having it printed in English. 

Mr. O’Connell. You would not have them forget their language, 
or the language of their forefathers, would you ? 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


303 


Mr. Adair. No. W liy do we go to slicool to learn to speak French 
and other languages? We do it because it is of advantage to us to 
do it. What I mean is this: If a number of foreigners come here and 
they settle down in a community, they should become Americanized 
in every way possible, no matter whether they are Germans or Jews. 
They ought to learn to read the English language and to speak the 
English language. They do not need to forget their own language 
to do it. 

Mr. O’Connell. Some of the best English scholars in Boston to¬ 
day are among the Hebrews who have arrived in the last twenty 
years. They are among the finest scholars in Harvard. There is 
no doubt but that the Hebrew children very quickly acquire an 
intimate and fluent knowledge of English. 

Mr. Adair. Surely they do. 

Mr. O’Connell. 1 would like at this time to introduce into the 
record a telegram that I have just received, which is as follows: 


Boston, Mass., March 11, 1910. 

Congressman Joseph F. O’Connell, 

House of Representatives , Washington , D. C. 

United congregations of orthodox Jews in Boston earnestly oppose restriction immi¬ 
gration bills. Please use all efforts in opposition. 

Isaac Heller, President, 

S Lawrence Park, Roxbury. 


I would like to say here that I am using all the efforts I know how 
to use and will be only too glad to continue in that line. 

Mr. Kustermann. And those efforts have been well directed. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. In the bill H. R. 13404, which we are 
now considering, under section 2 the list of persons to be excluded 
from the United States includes “all aliens over sixteen years of 
age, physically capable of reading, who can not read the English 
language or the language of some other European country,” etc. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I want to ask your opinion as to the 
wisdom of admitting common laborers into the United States who 
could not comply with the educational test as provided in this bill. 

Mr. Sulzberger. I think that if we had not the laborer, irrespective 
of his ability to read, we would find great difficulty about getting 
our heavy work done. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Do you understand that there is a 
demand for common labor in the United States to-day? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Oh, I am convinced of it. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. To what extent is there such a 
demand ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. As 1 am able to make it out, it is tremendous. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. In order that the record may be 
illuminated to this extent: How far does your information go as to 
the requirements of the mines- 

Mr. Sulzberger. I do not know about that. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And the farms and the factories, 
with regard to unskilled labor such as might be debarred by that 
provision ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Statistically, I can not answer that; but in a 
general way, from my observation of the matter, I am convinced 



304 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


that with all the immigrants we have we are not to-day responsive 
to the demand for labor. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Assuming that trouble might ensue 
in this country in the way of riots, in the way of the performances 
of the Mafia, or of the Black Hand, or any other illegal secret society, 
have you information to indicate whether the men composing such 
societies and performing such illegal acts, who are foreign born, 
belong to the educated classes, those capable of reading and writing, 
or are those who have not the education that would enable them to 
come in under that bill? 

Mr. Sulzberger. I do not see how a man could send a Black 
Hand letter if he could not write. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I wanted to find out some of your 
reasons for opposing this provision. 

Mr. Sulzberger. At first blush it may seem strange to you, but it 
is, unfortunately, a true statement. There does not seem to be any 
relation between crime and education. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Would }mu regard a man who could 
not read, but who came here with an honorable purpose to better his 
condition and that of his family, as a dangerous person to be admitted 
into the United States-- 

Mr. Sulzberger. On the contrary. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania (continuing). Because he could not 
read ?. 

Mr. Sulzberger. His inability to read does not, to my mind, in 
the least lessen his value to the country. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Is it your opinion that the shrewd 
man who can read and who is capable of concocting schemes and 
conspiracies and arranging plans to violate the authority and the law, 
is a dangerous person to be admitted ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. My information is that 93 per cent of all the 
prisoners, according to the prison statistics in this country, are 
literate, and that 7 per cent are illiterate. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Then it is your judgment that the 
illiterate well-meaning man who comes for the honest purpose of 
bettering his condition, is a desirable immigrant and therefore ought 
to be admitted because he is less dangerous than the man who is 
better educated than he? 

Mr. Sulzberger. No; I would put it in this way. There is no 
connection between illiteracy and crime, and the fact that a man is 
illiterate should not weigh either for or against him in admitting 
him to the country. There may be other reasons for debarring him, 
but illiteracy is not one of them, because there does not seem to be 
anyone that I can find anywhere who says there is any connection 
between illiteracy and crime. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I am not stating my judgment. 

Mr. Sulzberger. I understand that. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I am seeking yours. You are sat¬ 
isfied that there is a demand in this country for common labor, such 
as might be unable to read and write ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Absolutely. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. You are satisfied that such immi¬ 
grants as come from Russia and Roumania, very largely due to the 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 305 

oppression existing there, would be desirable as common laborers in 
this country if they could not read and write ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Certainly. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And this belief of yours would hold 
good with relation to other nationalities? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Certainly. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Italians and others, coming in now? 

Mr. Sulzberger. Oh, yes; absolutely. I want to call attention to 
one other thing that I think has not had sufficient attention. It 
seems to me that one of the greatest and perhaps the greatest problem 
this country has to deal with, is capable of being solved by liberal 
immigration. I refer to the negro problem. The whole tendency of 
immigration has been that the immigrant pushes away the less thrifty, 
the less industrious. The immigrant pushes him up if he is capable 
of being pushed up, or pushes him aside, as the case may be. If we 
could introduce into the Southern States south Italian immigration, 
people who have been accustomed to a warm climate, and put them 
at the work the negro is doing, the negro population now concen¬ 
trated in a few States w uld, of necessity, be scattered over the 
entire United States, and would become an infinitesimal percentage 
of the whole population, instead of being, as in some places they are, 
a majority in the places in which they are congested; and it would 
solve the greatest problem our country has to deal with. I think if 
gentlemen will give attention to that they will find that there is pos¬ 
sibly there the solution of a very grave problem. 

Mr. Burnett. Let me state right there that many of the mine opera¬ 
tors and furnace operators would rather have a negro than the south 
Italians as laborers. There is this difference: The negro does not 
want to work continuously, like the Italian. He wants a day or two 
or three days off after he gets his money, so that he can spend it; 
but as to the amount and quality of work which they can do, they will 
tell you that the negro is better than the south Italian. 

Mr. Sulzberger. My experience with southern employees is not 
large, but so far as it goes I have been led to believe that they were 
not very well pleased with the class of uneducated, unskilled labor 
that they were dealing with. Is there anything else ? 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. You see no danger, then, from the 
admission, as it is now permitted under the existing law, of those im¬ 
migrants who come into this country and who are unable to read and 
write ? 

Mr. Sulzberger. On the contrary. I do not say, alone, that I see 
no danger. I put it affirmatively. I see vast benefit to the country 
in the admission of all immigrants not now debarred, and perhaps 
in the admission of some who are, not righteously, debarred. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. We are very much obliged to you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. LOUIS MARSHALL, OF NEW YORK, N. Y. 

Mr. Marshall. Gentlemen, the question was asked by Mr. Moore 
as to what was being done in the city of New York by the Jewish 
organizations and other organizations with regard to the education 
of the immigrant. I am a member of the board of directors of the 
Educational Alliance, and have been for about fifteen years. That 

49090—10-20 


306 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


organization was formed for the Americanization of the immigrant. 
That is its principal purpose. The extent to which the work of the 
Educational Alliance is carried on is evidenced by the fact that 
during the last four or five years the number of visitors who have 
come to the building for the purpose of getting instruction has 
averaged about two and a half million a year. That is an indication 
of the extent to which that work is carried on. The work consists 
largely in instructing the immigrant as to the duties of American 
citizenship and as to the resources of our country, and I would like 
to read for your information from the report of the commission of 
immigration of the State of New York, of which I have the honor 
to be chairman, one of the appendixes which shows the various sub¬ 
jects which are discussed and lectured upon with respect to American 
history and civics in the Educational Alliance: 

1. The American character: An exposition of the characteristics of the American. 

2. American ideals: An exposition of the American ideals of work, civil liberty, 
equal rights, religious liberty, universal education. 

3. Ideal government: Embodying the ideas of liberty and law. A popular exposi¬ 
tion of the Anglo-Saxon conception of government, of liberty, and law. 

4. The beginnings of American liberty: Showing the reasons for the triumph in 
America of the English and their political ideas. 

5. Periods in American history: Colonization. Illustrated. 

6. Franklin and life in the colonies. 

7. Washington and the American Revolution. 

8. Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. 

9. The making of the American Constitution: Showing how and why the American 
nation was formed. 

10. The American Constitution: The relation of the state and nation; amendments 
and Bill of Rights. 

11. American Government, city, state, and nation: A general survey of the three 
kinds of government. Illustrated. 

12. The American Constitution: Congress. 

13. The American Constitution: The President. 

14. The American Constitution: The courts. 

15. The American press and public opinion. 

16. The American educational system and ideals. 

17. The growth of America under the Constitution. Illustrated. 

18. Lincoln and the abolition of slavery. Illustrated. 

19. Georgaphy of the United States. Illustrated. 

20. Economic conditions of the United States as compared with Europe. 

21. The development of the West. Illustrated. 

22. Life of the Jews in the United States, in the South and the West. Illustrated. 

23. Jewish farming in America. Illustrated. 

24. American public problems: The state and the nation. 

25. American public problems: The government and the party. 

26. American public problems: The citizen. 

27. American public problems: The state and the city. 

28. History of the city of New York. 

29. Government of the city of New York. 

30. Ideals of American citizenship. 

31. The duty of the foreigners to America. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Pardon me, but what application 
has this ? 

Mr. Marshall. This is to answer your question as to whether or 
not the Jewish organizations- 

Mr. Sulzberger. Mr. Adair asked the question. 

Mr. Marshall. It is to answer the question as to whether or not 
the Jewish people in the city of New York were instructing foreigners 
who came there as to the duties of American citizenship, and what 
they were doing toward assimilating them into the bodv of American 
citizens. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


307 


Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And these are the subjects that are 
taught ? 

Mr. Marshall. These are the subjects that are taught and lec¬ 
tured upon by some of the ablest men in the city of New York. The 
lectures are first conducted in Yiddish, so as to enable those who are 
unable to understand English to understand the subjects in the 
earlier stages. Then the lectures are delivered in English, accom¬ 
panied by illustrations and lantern slides. 

One question was asked as to teaching English. In the Educa¬ 
tional Alliance we have various classes organized solely for the pur¬ 
pose of rapidly teaching Jewish immigrants the English language. 
Those classes are very largely attended. We have now some 35 
different classes taking care of the various portions of the population. 
The adults who work in the daytime are taught at night. The 
adults who work at night are taught in the daytime. The mothers 
have their own classes. The teachers in the Jewish religious schools 
have their classes in which they are taught the English language, 
so that they may give their instruction in religion, even, in the Eng¬ 
lish language. Then there are day classes for newly arrived chil¬ 
dren; and in that way every part of the Jewish population is satu¬ 
rated with the English language, so that in a very short time those 
children, and those men and women who have come to this country 
after they have reached majority, are better able to speak with their 
Yiddish brethren in English than in Yiddish; and, as a matter of 
fact, it is a very curious thing that the Yiddish of New York is an 
entirely different language from the Yiddish of Russia, because there 
is an interpolation of English words from the very beginning. So 
that in a very short time, by a process of natural evolution, the 
people speak the English language and do not speak the Yiddish 
language. 

As to the newspapers, the Yiddish newspaper performs a very 
important function. I had the fortune, or the misfortune, of being 
the organizer of a Yiddish newspaper a number of years ago, to be 
published purely and solely from the standpoint of civics. The 
papers at that time were not entirely to the satisfaction of some of 
the members of the community, and so we tried the experiment of 
establishing a paper which would do the very kind of teaching con¬ 
templated by this list of subjects which the Educational Alliance deals 
with. We had the Declaration of Independence translated into 
Yiddish. We had the Constitution of the United States translated 
into Yiddish. We had commentaries upon that; and we had the 
history of the United States from the landing of Columbus down to 
the present day. We had all kinds of subjects of that character, for 
the purpose of impressing upon the Yiddish-speaking population 
these ideas. To indicate the process of evolution there were two 
pages in English, so that they would gradually go from the Yiddish 
into the English. That paper resulted in a loss to the projectors of 
$50,000 in two years—“and the subsequent proceedings interested 
them no more.” [Laughter.] 

But the effect of it has been that there has been a development 
of all the Yiddish papers in New York City in that direction; and 
any gentleman who is capable of reading Yiddish, as I know several 
members of the committee are—and I think one ought to be from 
his experience [laughter]—will find that all the important questions 


308 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


of economics and civics, and ail the important questions of politics, 
are most intelligently discussed in the Yiddish language in these 
newspapers. You need not be afraid that the Jewish people of 
that city, however, are going to adhere to those papers alone. They 
are repeatedly reading others. They are great readers of the news¬ 
papers. Anyone going into the reading room of the Educational 
Alliance in the evening would be astounded at the number of readers. 
It is astounding. And the subjects about which they read there are as 
numerous as the mind of man can conceive of. And, as has already 
been stated by Mr. Sulzberger, the public libraries in that part 
of the city in which the Jews live are the best patronized libraries 
in the city of New York. The books read are not trash and not 
light literature, but they deal with scientific subjects. To give 
an idea of the mental characteristics of the people I will say that 
in the Educational Alliance we had a class of 100 men who met 
every Saturday night, taught by Mr. Sassovitz. Some of these 
men were push-cart peddlers, and some of them workers at tailoring 
trades, but they met on Saturday night and discussed questions of 
science, of art, of the world’s literature, and the higher mathematics. 
The people appreciated the subjects and took pleasure in the study 
of those particular matters. 

I think this really is merely one of the side shows in this question, 
but still it indicates that the people who come here are being taken 
care of and are being advised; and the Educational Alliance is not 
the only organization that is doing it. There are the Young Men’s 
Hebrew Association, the Young Women’s Hebrew Association, and 
various settlements on the east side. The Wall settlement on Henry 
street is one of the models of the world. There is the Federation of 
Harlem. Those who have occasion to contribute will know how 
numerous they are, because their name is legion, and they are all 
doing this work, not onty in New York, but in Chicago, in Philadel- 

E hia, in St. Louis, in San Francisco, and in every quarter of America. 

iest it be thought that the Jews are all segregated and congregated 
in the city of New York, let me tell you that there is scarcely a com¬ 
munity in the country in which you will not find a settlement of Jews. 
I think those who know them know that they are a self-respecting 
part of the community and are doing their part toward becoming as 
rapidly as possible an integral part of the American people; and they 
resent nothing more than to be considered as a thing apart. They 
want to be considered as a part of the American people. 

I have read some of the debates upon this subject, and they are 
really amusing when we use the parallel column comparison. This 
same talk about inferior races has been used ever since immigration 
commenced. 

In 1817, when the total number of immigrants to this country was 
2,800, just see what Nile’s Register said about the awful fate con¬ 
fronting the United States: 

We have room enough; let them come. * * * But the emigrants should press 
into the interior. 

The idea of having 2,800 people remaining at the seaboard: 

In the present state of the times we seem too thick on the maritime frontier already. 
Within there is ample and profitable employment for all in almost any branch of 
business, and strangers should be encouraged to seek it there. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


309 


That was in 1817. 

Mr. Burnett. What was the total population of the United States 
then ? 

Mr. Marshall. It must have been then about 6,000,000. 

Mr. Adair. At that time they thought the interior of the country 
was along about this place here, I suppose. 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; this was rather wild. They wanted to get 
them away from the congested city of New York. They had a popu¬ 
lation there then, I think, of 125,000 people. 

In the report of the managers of the Society for the Prevention of 
Pauperism m New York City, in 1819, it is said: 

First, as to the emigrants from foreign countries, the managers are compelled to 
speak of them in the language of astonishment and apprehension. Through this inlet 
pauperism threatens us with the most overwhelming consequences. 

See how far our country has progressed since that time, 1819: 

From various causes the city of New York is doomed to be the landing place of a 
great portion of the European population who are daily flocking to our country for a 
place of permanent abode. This city is the largest importing capital of the United 
States, and a position from which a departure into the interior is generally considered 
the most easy and practicable. On being possessed of more extensive and active trade 
than any other commercial emporium in the Union, it naturally occurs to the minds 
of emigrants that we possess great means of employment. Our situation is peculiarly 
healthy, and no local objection, either physical or moral, exists to arrest the approach 
of foreigners. The present state of Europe contributes in a thousand ways to foster 
unceasing immigration to the United States. * * * An almost innumerable popu¬ 
lation beyond the ocean is out of employment, and this has the effect of increasing the 
usual want of employ. This country is the resort of vast numbers of those needy 
and wretched beings. Thousands are continually resting their hopes on the refuge 
which she offers, filled with delusive visions of plenty and luxury. They seize the 
earliest opportunity to cross the Atlantic and land upon our shores. * * * What 
has been the destination of this immense accession to our population, and where is it 
now? Many of these foreigners have found employment; some may have passed into 
the interior, but thousands still remain among us. They are frequently found desti¬ 
tute in our streets; they seek employment at our doors; they are found in our alms¬ 
houses and in our hospitals; they are found at the bar of criminal tribunals, in our 
Bridewell, our penitentiary, and our state prisons. And we lament to say that they 
are too often led by want, by vice, and by habit to form a phalanx of plunder and 
depredations, rendering our city more liable to increase of crime and our houses of 
correction more crowded with convicts and felons. 

That was in 1819. Some of those immigrants, I suppose, were your 
grandfathers; some of them may have been your fathers; and some 
arrived subsequent to that time; and still this country is what it is, 
and it has grown to be what it is, and these immigrants more than any 
other part of our population have made it what it is. They are the 
people who have made the great Northwest, Wisconsin, Minnesota, 
and the neighboring States; and they are the people who have built 
up the East in all our great industries. When we think of the State 
of New York and its large percentage of foreign population, as has 
been indicated here, does it not seem utterly absurd for people to say 
that this country is going to ruin and destruction ? Ah, but some of 
these gentlemen say it is because the people who are coming now are 
of a different class. They say that the people who were here before 
and who were the fathers of Senators and of Members of the House 
of Representatives, and who are in our state legislatures, were a dif¬ 
ferent class. They were Germans, and they were Irish, and they were 
of a better quality. But let us see what they said in 1819. They said: 

The Irish had an utter distaste for felling forests and turning up the prairies for them¬ 
selves. They preferred to stay where another race would furnish them with food, cloth- 


310 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


ing, and labor, and hence were mostly found loitering on the lines of the public works, 
in villages, and in the worst portions of the large cities, where they competed with the 
negroes—between whom and themselves there was an inveterate dislike—for the most 
degrading employments. 

I have other beautiful specimens of this same character, in which 
the German is put in the same category as the Irish. They are priest- 
ridden. They are people who are ignorant. They have not the ideals 
the Anglo-Saxon has, and words to that effect. 

Later, still, we have criticisms of the Swedes and the Norwegians, 
and now the criticism comes of those from eastern Europe and from 
southern Europe. 

I have had occasion to give a great deal of study to this question, 
with a view of seeing what the conditions are in this country to-day as 
the result of this eastern European and southern European migration 
into this country. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I think at that point I will ask you this question, 
so that when the Members of the House take up the hearings they may 
understand the official position you hold: You are now the president 
of the immigration commission of the State of New York? 

Mr. Marshall. I am the ex-president. The commission was organ- . 
ized under an act of the legislature of the State of New York for the 
purpose of investigating into the condition, welfare, and industrial 
opportunities of aliens in the State of New York. We got through 
with the work and are no longer in office. I am now a private citi¬ 
zen. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Kustermann. I hope that all the extracts you have read, and 
those that you have not read, will go into our record. 

Mr. Marshall. I will see that you get them. 

(The extracts above referred to will be found at the end of Mr. 
Marshall's statement.) 

Mr. Bennet. You will give a statement of the source in each 
instance ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; the authority is given in each instance. 

There is now very little immigration from Ireland, England, or 
Germany. The need for immigration, so far as concerns the need of 
immigration from those countries, no longer exists; but the immigra¬ 
tion comes from other parts of Europe. Those people come, not for 
the purpose of being idle, not for the purpose of making themselves 
public charges, but for the purpose of being useful workers in the 
great American beehive. We are constantly engaged in great public 
works. Take the State of New York, for example. At the present 
date the city of New York is spending over $1,000,000 on the new 
waterworks system and the Ashokan dam and aqueduct. And who 
are doing the work there ? Italians, southern Europeans and eastern 
Europeans. The Stateof New Yorkis also spending about $50,000,000 
on the building of the new public-highway system throughout the 
State. Who is doing that work? The same people. No Germans, 
no Irish, no native-born Americans. They would not work at such 
jobs. 

They are constructing a great barge canal, at an expense of over 
$100,000,000. And who is doing the work there? Not native 
Americans, not the sons of Irish immigrants, or of German immigrants. 
The people who are doing that work are these same people from 
southern Europe and eastern Europe. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


311 


The railroads require trackmen. All the great public works require 
men to do manual labor. All that is done by the southern European 
and the eastern European. 

Mr. Bennet. When you say all- 

Mr. Marshall. I mean practically all. 

Mr. Bennet. I assume that you mean it to apply to the mere 
manual labor. Many Irish and native Americans are employed as 
superintendents. 

Mr. Marshall. I do not mean that the “bossing” is done by the 
newly arrived immigrants. That is done by those of an earlier 
generation; and that merely indicates the advantages of our system 
of government. The man who comes to-day is ready to handle the 
pick and shovel. As a result of his imbibing American ideas his 
standard of living is raised and he becomes more expert, and in five 
years from now he will be the boss. In ten years from now he will be 
the contractor. In twenty years from now he will be the alderman. 
[Laughter.] And so there is a development from time to time which 
is desirable, which is of great advantage to the country, and which 
adds to its strength. Every man who comes here in the vigor of 
jnanhood, and who has been admitted here, is an asset to this country 
of very great value. I have not any doubt but that every man who 
has the full possession of his faculties is worth $2,000 net to this 
country the moment he arrives here; and of course it results in an 
increase and addition of wealth to the country. I am not discussing 
it as a Jewish question, but as a question which applies just as much 
to the Italian, the Croatian, and the Hun, as to the Jew, because they 
are all doing their part in the world's work and in the development 
of this country. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Is it your opinion, then, that our 
system of education here tends to make manual labor uncomfortable 
for the American people ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. I think there is a great fault in the Ameri¬ 
can educational system. I may be guilty of heresy- 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And as we educate him, and as we 
educate the immigrant, we wean him away from the dignity of 
manual labor ? 

Mr. Marshall. Precisely. I am not guilty of heresy, but people 
may think so. I say that one of the great difficulties that we have 
to contend with in the United States is an excess of education, and 
an erroneous theory of education, and an improper distribution of 
education. A man who would be a good mechanic wants to become 
a professional man. Nobody is satisfied with his situation—which 
is a very desirable condition to be in; but sometimes it has the 
defects of its qualities, and for that reason we sometimes find that 
the American-born farmer’s boy leaves the farm and goes to the city 
and becomes a second-class clerk or a bookkeeper, or a man who 
erects a position which is not one-half as dignified as that of a farmer, 
and our farms are deserted. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Then, in your opinion, if we would 
have this necessary manual labor done, in digging canals, opening up 
roads and highways, etc., it would be well for us, perhaps, to have a 
few people in the country who could not read or write ? 




312 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Marshall. I do not think it helps a man to do physical work 
to be able to work out a mathematical problem, or to understand 
astronomy, biology, or any of the other ologies, or to read or write. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And if he did- 

Mr. Marshall. If he did, I do not think he would stay there very 
long. The whole tendency of the country is upward and toward 
improvement. The laggards and the inferior people drop by the 
wayside. In sociology as in all sciences, it is a question of the 
survival of the fittest. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Does not that account for the con¬ 
tinuance of the newspaper printed in the foreign language, and the 
concentration of people of one nationality? 

Mr. Marshall. That is purely incidental. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. But does not that account for it ? 

Mr. Marshall. Certainly. Certain people of a colony congregate 
because of the fact that they like to be among people they understand 
and who have the same ideas and associations and the same bringing 
up. They naturally congregate together and have their own news¬ 
papers, just as we have the Courrier des Etats-Unis in New York— 
the newspaper of the French. We have the Italian newspapers. 
There are probably 50 newspapers of that kind published in New 
York, in the Syrian, Armenian, and every known language of the 
world. That does not change the situation. That does not affect 
the Americanism of those people; because if you can speak in a dozen 
tongues you can preach the same doctrine and reach the people of a 
dozen tongues, whereas with one tongue you might be able to reach 
but one. The tendenc}^ is that they will all learn to speak the 
language of this country. The desire to get on will impel them to. 
There is not an Italian who does not in time begin, in his own way, to 
speak the English language. The children of the Italians are in a 
short time able to speak the English language as well as the children 
of any man whose ancestors came over in the Mayflower. The situa¬ 
tion is no different. They will become accustomed to their environ¬ 
ment, and they do. I am not discussing mere theories. The facts 
speak for themselves. 

At the request of a member of the committee I have sent copies 
of this report [Report of Immigration Commission] to the various 
members of the committee, and I hope that you will all take the pains 
to read the chapter on “ Industrial and agricultural opportunities for 
aliens/’ running from page 130 to page 137. You will find there a dis¬ 
cussion of this economic question as it has been taken up in New York. 

We took pains to send a schedule of questions to the various manu¬ 
facturers and various trades unions in all the different parts of the 
State of New York, as to the character of the labor they had, as to 
the nationality, as to the time they had been in the country, etc.; 
and we found—and we have here excerpts from the reports—that in 
many cases where there had been previously American labor, and 
where there had been German or Irish labor," those of other nations 
were coming in. But these were the reasons given by the gentlemen 
here: 

Natives are not always available, and when available will not do the work required. 

American-born citizens find more lucrative employment. 

Foreigners are more reliable and do better work. 

Native born are seeking other than mill work. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


313 


In the manufacture of fiber ware and material; on account of labor troubles. 

Foreigners are better workers, steadier, and more sober; also not inclined to look for 
easy work. 

One says: 

Foreigners on our work have not proven satisfactory. 

Another says: 

Our business is too particular and fine for foreign born. 

Another says: 

The neatest workers are invariably American born; they are cleaner and more pride 
is seemingly taken by them in the execution of their work. 

Then again they say they can not get the American labor. You 
can not get the American born to work in the mill, or to do the ordi¬ 
nary labor of a daily operative on public works, and therefore you 
must seek that labor somewhere, or else the country will be at a stand¬ 
still. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I would like to ask you in that con¬ 
nection, whether you are familiar with the term “a bird of passage?” 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Do I understand it correctly when I 
understand that it has reference to a foreigner who comes over in a 
flush season, works and earns what he can, and then goes back in the 
dull season to spend his earnings abroad ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Will you tell us how far that practice 
prevails among the Jews ? 

Mr. Marshall. It can not prevail among the Jews. They have 
nowhere else to go. 

Mr. Burnett. They can not go back? 

Mr. Marshall. They can not go back. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Then the tendency of the Jew is 
rather to remain and become naturalized, and to become American¬ 
ized. 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir; as soon as possible. The moment the 
wished-for hour has arrived when they can become American citizens 
they avail themselves of that opportunity; and I can say that they 
are as passionately fond of this country as they detest the country 
from which they are refugees. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. To what extent may it be said the 
Jews send back to the old country the money they earn in this coun¬ 
try, as is said to be the practice with certain other nationalities ? 

Mr. Marshall. The Jews send money to their parents, their 
sisters, their children, and wives, for the purpose of bringing them 
here as soon as they can. If, unfortunately, the parents are old, 
they send money to them, because the Jews are believers in the fifth 
commandment, and honor their parents. They observe that com¬ 
mandment at all times. 

Mr. Burnett. They do not send the money back to be deposited 
in foreign banks? 

Mr. Marshall. They do not. They use their money in the devel¬ 
opment of American industries. There is not an industry which 
you can mention in which the Jews are not interesting themselves 
and in which they are not investing their savings—sometimes unwisely, 


314 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


because sometimes they are invested as a permanent investment. 
[Laughter.] But in the end it makes for the well-being of this country; 
and if they fail in their hopes, it is only to try again after they fail the 
first time. 

Mr. Adair. Have you ever traveled through the Central West, or 
made any observation as to the men employed in the mills and the 
factories and on the public works out in the Central West? 

Mr. Marshall. I have not. 

Mr. Adair. The statement you make regarding the employment 
of aliens in the factory and on the public works in the city of New 
York I imagine is entirely true. 

Mr. Marshall. We have the figures to show it. 

Mr. Adair. I do not doubt it for a moment; but when you get out 
in the Middle West and the extreme West you find the conditions 
are very different. In my country I represent a very large manu¬ 
facturing district, and I do not believe that to exceed 10 per cent, or 
possibly not more than 5 per cent, of the men who are employed in 
the mills and factories in my district are other than American born. 
And on the public works, our road building, and so on, you seldom see 
an Italian employed there at all. Our Americans out there do not feel 
that it is a disgrace to do common labor. 

Mr. Marshall. That is all answered by the fact that there is an 
ample supply of American labor for the demand which exists there, 
whereas in other parts of the country there is not a sufficient supply 
of American labor to meet the demand for labor which exists, and 
hence they have to get their labor where they can. 

Mr. Adair. I think that is true. 

Mr. Kustermann. That is what we find in Wisconsin. 

Mr. Marshall. Take the matter of farms. The State of New York, 
this report shows, is running behind in the number of farms every year. 
There are not less than 20,000 abandoned farms in the State of New 
York to-day, because there are not men there to do the work. There 
are abandoned farms in New England. This whole question of the 
high cost of living would be easily solved if you had enough farm 
laborers, and if the immigrants were encouraged to go upon the farms 
you would not have the high prices which now prevail and which 
cause the high cost of living. 

Mr. Adair. There was a matter I was trying to get at this morning 
when I asked Mr. Sulzberger; and I will ask you whether or not your 
societies encourage them to take up farming in the country ? 

Mr. Marshall. They do; and I think that is one of the greatest 
pieces of work in that regard that has ever been undertaken. 

Mr. Adair. The tendency, however, among the immigrants, is to 
remain in the cities, is it not ? 

Mr. Marshall. That is the tendency all over the world, Mr. Adair. 
Let me give you a few facts on that subject. The tendency of modern 
times has been toward the increase of the urban population at the 
expense of the rural districts. Let me read you a few brief statements 
as to the growth of cities, the figures being given for 1800, 1850,1890, 
and 1900: 

London: In 1800, 958,000; in 1850, 2,362,000; in 1890, 4,211,000; in 1900, 4,536,000. 

New York: In 1800, 62,000; in 1850, 660,000; in 1890, 2,740,000; in 1900, 4,014,000. 

Paris: In 1800, 546,000; in 1850, 1,053,000; in 1890, 2,448,000; in 1900, 2,714,000. 

Berlin: In 1800, 173,000; in 1850, 378,000; in 1890, 1,578,000; in 1900, 2,033,000. 

Vienna: In 1800, 232,000; in 1850, 431,000; in 1890, 1,341,000; in 1900, 1,674,000. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


315 


So I go through every large city in the world, and the fact is that, 
whereas at the beginning of the nineteenth century the cities were 
comparatively small, at the beginning of the twentieth century they 
had increased fivefold in population all through the world; not only 
in the country where the immigrant arrives, but in the country from 
which the immigrant comes. The tendency has been toward the 
building up of the city at the expense of the rural community, and 
the time has come when those who are wise will echo the cry “Back 
to the 8011;” because that will be the solution of many of the great 
economic problems that are confronting all parts of the world. 

Mr. Bennet. I might say in this connection that, as I recall the 
figures, in 1800 the immigrants constituted 3 per cent of the popu¬ 
lation in cities and villages of over 3,000; and it is now estimated 
that they constitute over 50 per cent. 

Mr. Burnett. Is it not true that the recent immigrants, at least, 
remain in the cities in much greater proportion than those who go 
into the country ? 

Mr. Marshall. I think it is true that among the more recent 
immigrants the smaller proportion settles on the farms, or in the 
country. 

Mr. Burnett. That is, during the first two years ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; in the beginning. 

Mr. Burnett. During the first two years. 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; in the first place they come to New York or 
to Philadelphia and get employment there, but gradually they get 
into the country. By that 1 do not mean that they go on the farms, 
but they get into the smaller cities and then gradually into the vil¬ 
lages and towns; and after a while when they get wise they buy farms. 
That fact is illustrated by the circumstance that the number of 
Jewish farmers is increasing every day, and the number of Italian 
farmers is very largely on the increase. That is also true of the 
Greeks, who are well known as florists, and who do a very large busi¬ 
ness in floriculture. A great many of other nationalities are carrying 
on truck farms near the cities. In that way there is a tendency in 
that direction, although it is not as rapid as it might be if they went 
to the country in the first place. 

Mr. Bennet. The census figures show that the proportion of 
foreign born on the farms now is constantly increasing. 

Mr. Marshall. It is increasing over what it has been. 

Mr. Burnett. But not in proportion to the increase of population. 

Mr. Bennet. Oh, yes. The proportion of foreign born on the 
farms increases at a greater rate than the proportion of foreign born 
to our total population. The census figures show that. 

Mr. Burnett. It does not increase in proportion to the number 
that come in. 

Mr. Bennet. Yes. 

Mr. Burnett. I think you are mistaken, but I am not sure about it. 

Mr. Sabath. I would like to say that a Member of the House from 
my State desires to be heard, and there are other gentlemen here, of 
course, from other States. They would like to know whether you 
can give them a hearing to-morrow. They will also speak against the 
Hayes and the Elvins bills. 

Mr. Gallagher. I only want to say a few words. 


316 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. I think that the gentlemen from a distance ought 
to have the preference. We can hear Mr. Gallagher at any time. 

Mr. Bennet. If you will come to the committee room to-morrow 
morning between 10.30 and 12 o’clock you can be heard. 

Mr. Marshall. This economic question- 

Mr. Burnett. Before you pass from the question of congestion I 
would like to ask you a question, because the other gentleman could 
not give me the information I wanted as to the number of foreign born 
in New York City. You reside, I believe, in that city ? 

Mr. Marshall. I do. 

Mr. Burnett. Can you give us that information? 

Mr. Marshall. I can not give you the exact figures; but of course 
there is no doubt that it is a very large part of the population. I 
should think it might be safe to say that at least one-half, or possibly 
more, are of foreign birth in the city of New York. The proportion 
of foreign born in the State is at least one-third. 

Mr. Burnett. Thirty-eight per cent, I believe. 

Mr. Marshall. I am referring to the State of New York. But 
when you consider in connection with that fact that the State of New 
York is the wealthiest State in the Union, notwithstanding that large 
foreign-born population; that it is advancing in every direction as 
rapidly as any community can advance; that it is not confined to any 
one line of activity, but that every branch of manufacture is con¬ 
ducted in that State; that every kind of employment is to be found in 
that State; that the foreign born is active in every one of those 
employments and in every direction you can look; and that you can 
not go down Broadway or any other street without seeing the names 
of foreigners prominent, as indicating that they are doing their work 
in the development of commerce and manufacture and every kind of 
activity, it is a pretty striking argument against the restriction of 
immigration. 

Mr. Adair. So that immigration, you think, has been at no time 
inimical to the prosperity of the city of New York? 

Mr. Marshall. Anyone who studies the history of the country, at 
any period, will find that if we had not been aided by this providential 
influx of immigration we would be very much behind the state we are 
now in. All this talk about immigrants is, to me, very amusing, when 
we consider that we are all immigrants—every one of us; I believe 
there is not in the House a single man with Indian blood in his 
veins—— 

Mr. Bennet. Oh, yes there is. 

Mr. Marshall. I thought there were in the Senate, but not in the 
House. 

Mr. Bennet. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Marshall. Beyond that, there are very few who are in any 
way, in this community, descendants of the Pilgrims, or of the 
original settlers of the South, who arrived in the country prior to the 
Revolution; because I understand the Sons and Daughters of the 
Revolution are not very numerous—although there is one daughter 
of the Revolution here to-day, who is of Jewish birth. You will 
find that the great bulk of our population is descended from people 
who have been on this continent not longer than one century. 
Then what is the use of talking about all this difficulty with immi¬ 
grants, when we are all either immigrants ourselves or the sons or 
grandsons of immigrants ? 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 317 

Mr. Adair. Do you believe that the increase of the head tax 
would lessen the number of immigrants ? 

Mr. Marshall. Certainly. If you increase the head tax to $25 
a head, it will be prohibitive in many instances. The people can not 
raise the money. It is a difficult tiling for them to get the money 
with which to buy their transportation. If you add to that the 
artificial deterrent requiring them to pay a head tax of $25, you make 
it impossible in the great majority of cases for the immigrant to 
come in, and most usually the people excluded are in that class of 
cases where the people are coming to this country as refugees from 
persecution—the class of people to whom our doors have been opened 
from the earliest day of our history. 

Mr. Adair. There are no bills pending to increase the head tax to 
that amount, are there ? 

Mr. Bennet. Oh, yes; to $100. 

Mr. Marshall. The Hayes bill provides for $25 and the Elvins 
bill for $100. 

Mr. Adair. I thought $10 was the limit. 

Mr. Marshall. We are still dealing in comparatively small fig¬ 
ures, but $25 is an amount of money which it takes years and years 
for people to collect when they are obliged—and it is not all a matter 
of the Jews, as somebody suggested to-day in reply to a question 
that was put—to live within the pale, to be restricted" from activities, 
and to have their hands and feet tied as well as their consciences. 

Mr. Adair. Let me ask you this question for information. I have 
heard the statement made that if the head tax were increased slightly 
it would not add to the expenses of the immigrant coming to this 
country because the steamship company would make the same price 
anyhow. 

Mr. Marshall. They would not do it. How can they do it? 
They certainly are not going to pay the head tax if it is $25 or $10. 
Whatever they pay in some way or other is added to the immigrant’s 
fare. They are not here as eleemosynary institutions. They are 
here to make money. 

Mr. Adair. I only wanted to get your opinion in the record. 

Mr. Marshall. Undoubtedly. Besides that, it is a very serious 
question whether such legislation as increasing the head tax to $10 
or $25 would be constitutional. 

Mr. Bennet. I just want to say that the statement was made to 
the committee that the fare had not been increased. I looked it up 
and found that was technically correct, and that the steamship com¬ 
panies’ third-class rate had not been increased, but that the steam¬ 
ship companies had commenced, since the act of 1907, the practice 
of collecting the extra $2 increase from the immigrant direct, in 
addition to the price he did pay. 

Mr. Adair. I had heard the statement made, but I wanted the 
record to show the fact. 

Mr. Marshall. You never can get something for nothing—not 
even from steamship companies. 

Mr. Bennet. They say it would not be restrictive. Take an 
ordinary Jewish family in Russia, consisting of father, mother, and 
five or six children. 

Mr. Marshall. Five persons ? 

Mr. Bennet. Seven persons. They would have to pay $10 apiece. 


318 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Marshall. Any increase would be a burden under which they 
would have to stagger. If you put it at $10 or $25, as I say, it would 
be utterly prohibitive. You might as well not disguise the measure, 
but say, “This is a bill for the prohibition of immigration into the 
United States,” or “For the absolute restriction of immigration.” 

Mr. Bennet. In other words, we might as well- 

Mr. Marshall. Call it what it is. 

Mr. Kustermann. It would be building a wall around our country. 

Mr. Moore, of Texas. Do you favor any head tax at all ? 

Mr. Marshall. We do not object to a head tax. We are ready to 
stand on the law as it is. 

Mr. Moore, of Texas. Are you satisfied with it at present ? 

Mr. Marshall. We think it is our duty to be. We do not ask for 
any change in the law in that regard. Let it stand, and let us not 
have these constant changes. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You prefer the enforcement of the present law as 
being really all that is needed ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. The present law is all right, if you have 
proper administrative regulations which will make that law effective, 
and which will be fair and just to all concerned, which will give a man 
a hearing, and give him his day in court, and which will not introduce 
the Russian methods into official administration. 

I was just about to say on the question of the head tax that it is a 
very serious question of constitutional law whether any further 
increase of the head tax could be sustained. When the head tax was 
fixed at 50 cents under the act of August 3, 1882, the Supreme Court 
of the United States, in the “head-money case” (112 U. S., 580), had 
some considerable difficulty in even sustaining that, and the only way 
it could sustain that was by the reasoning of Mr. Justice Miller, who 
said it was not for the purpose of revenue, and that it was not exacted 
under the taxing power, but merely for the temporary care of paupers. 

Mr. Burnett. What clause of the Constitution did it come under ? 

Mr. Marshall. That it must be for some specific purpose. The 
taxing power can not be arbitrarily exercised. It must be for some 
specific governmental purpose. 

Mr. Bennet. You are speaking of the case in One hundred and 
twelfth United States ? 

Mr. Marshall. One hundred and twelfth United States. There 
are other gentlemen here and I want to hurry on, unless some of you 
gentlemen wish to ask me questions. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I want to ask you a question in regard 
to the Hayes bill. Section 7 requires that the alien shall take out a 
certificate of residence before he has been in the country one year. 

Mr. Marshall. Within one year after the taking effect of the act. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Starting at line 1 O’, it provides that 
“any unnaturalized alien, unless he is a teacher, student, merchant, 
banker, editor, professional man, or a visitor traveling for curiosity 
or pleasure,” who does not take out a certificate shall be deported. 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. What is your opinion as to that ? 
What is the reason ? What would you understand to be the reason 
for the exception of the banker and the editor over a poor common 
laborer who could not read and write ? 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


319 


Mr. Marshall. I can not conceive of any reason. I can conceive 
of absolutely no reason. Our laws are supposed to rest on the theory 
that all people are alike. The theory of our institutions is that we 
are not respecters of persons and that there is to be no discrimination 
between one class of people and another. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. In your judgment, would the banker 
and the editor or professional man be more desirable than the man 
who can not read and write ? 

Mr. Marshall. I think not. We have plenty of bankers and pro¬ 
fessional men—perhaps too many of them—but we have not enough 
laborers. 

Mr. Burnett. I have not conferred with Mr. Hayes and do not 
know his purpose, but I imagine that the certificate would be more 
for the purpose of identification than anything else; and the reason 
why he does not include the others, I suppose, is that they are not 
usually so migratory as the other men. 

Mr. Bennet. That is taken almost bodily from the Chinese-exclu- 
sion act. 

Mr. Burnett. I suppose that is the purpose of it. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Marshall, you being a lawyer 
and an eminent one, as I well know, I would like to ask you this: 
Would it not be possible for almost any skillful alien who desired to 
override or to attempt to override the laws of this country to repre¬ 
sent himself as a merchant, a banker, an editor, or a professional 
man ? 

Mr. Marshall. There would be no difficulty at all. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And is not the field so wide that it 
would be alarmingly dangerous? 

Mr. Marshall. Undoubtedly it would be so; but I oppose this 
provision on even broader and stronger grounds. These people 
come to this country for the purpose of aiding its development, and 
also of aiding themselves—for the purpose of doing their small part 
in the creation of a greater America. Is it not the most undignified 
thing in the world to say to a man who comes here with those pur¬ 
poses in view, “ You are practically a man who is under surveillance; 
you must get a certificate from some official, which you must show on 
all occasions, to show that you have a right to be here?” Is it not 
an insult to the dignity of manhood ? Is it not introducing Russian 
methods into the United States ? 

If you go to Russia, even a Congressman of the United States, I 
suppose, would have to show a passport, and would have to have it 
viseed and have himself entered in the police records as being a person 
there under surveillance. 

Mr. Burnett. And he can not get in, sometimes, even then. I 
have had some experience. [Laughter.1 I found one place where 
the passport would not go, after being viseed by the Russian consul 
at New York. 

Mr. Marshall. If my father and mother had been obliged, when 
they came to this country, to get such a certificate as that, if I should 
look back at their records and find such a certificate, I would feel that 
that was a foul blot on my escutcheon. 

Mr. Bennet. A badge of degradation. 

Mr. Marshall. A reintroduction of the yellow badge that the Jews 
had to wear; and I swear I would hate to see such a thing introduced 


320 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


into the United States in regard to the Jew, the Italian, or any part 
of our community. It is the degradation of manhood, and I hope 
that whatever you do you will not put that blot upon people who, 
in time, will become citizens of the United States, and possibly mem¬ 
bers of a better strata of society than that which they are supposed to 
occupy when they are called upon to make that acknowledgment of 
humiliation. 

Then, look at what would happen. You would have to get that 
certificate. I think Congressman Bennet has been in the United 
States post-office building at times when people were there who 
wanted to become citizens of the United States; and they have been 
obliged to come day after day and to stand in line from 4 o’clock in 
the morning until 5 o’clock in the afternoon, and then be requested 
to come some other day. They are compelled to leave their work 
before they can go through the formula of becoming American citi¬ 
zens; and these people who come here for the purpose of earning a 
livelihood might be required to sthnd in line day after day before 
they could get a certificate, and be damned up hill and down by 
$2 clerks because they would feel that those people as yet had no 
vote, and might not, perhaps, get one. I think the administrative 
features of that would be abhorrent to any one’s sense of right 
and justice, and to anyone who has seen the workings of even that 
part of our system which relates to the act of naturalization. 

Mr. Burnett. Would it be any more so than to require an affi¬ 
davit for the purpose of naturalization ? 

Mr. Marshall. That is a matter of proof. 

Mr. Burnett. But he has to make application, and it has to be 
sworn to and has to be in writing. He has to make a written state¬ 
ment. 

Mr. Marshall. But under our immigration law you have all the 
record of the man when he arrives. Why should he get a certificate 
of residence in addition to that after he stays his time ? In regard to 
the act of naturalization, that is a judicial act. It is a proceeding in 
court. You have to have evidence, and that is perfectly proper; and 
the stronger your requirements may be with regard to the possession 
by the applicant of thorough knowledge of the genius of our institu¬ 
tions, of knowledge of our Government, and of ability to speak the 
English language, the better I like it. 

Mr. Bennet. The language here is: 

And any unnaturalized alien, unless he is a teacher, student, merchant, banker, 
editor, professional man, or a visitor traveling for curiosity or pleasure, who, after 
the expiration of said one year, shall be found within the United States without such 
certificate of residence shall be deemed to be unlawfully within the United States 
and shall be taken into custody upon the warrant of the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor, and unless it shall be satisfactorily established that the failure of such person 
to procure a certificate of residence as herein required during the said period of one 
year, as herein provided, by reason of accident, sickness, or other unavoidable cause, 
shall be deported, etc. 

Mr. Goldfogle. It renders him practically a criminal. 

Mr. Marshall. He is packed out of the country. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Leaving now the question of the 
certificate itself and taking up the other question that I asked you 
about a moment ago, what would be the effect of excepting teachers, 
students, merchants, bankers, editors, and professional men, so far as 
concerns the misrepresentation that might follow in the application of 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


321 


those who are already prohibited by law from coming into the 
country. 

Mr. Marshall. Certainly it would be a very simple thing to evade 
the law under such a provision. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And what would be the effect of the 
exception of a teacher or a professional man ? 

Mr. Marshall. Herr Most was a teacher. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Would you expect any man so 
excepted to work upon the roads, or to build waterworks, or work on 
public works ? 

Mr. Marshall. I would not. It would be a mere matter of annoy¬ 
ance. That is all it amounts to. It is one more obstacle in the w r ay. 

Mr. Bennet. If it takes $395,000 a year to enforce the Chinese 
exclusion act against the extremely limited number of Chinese who 
come, what would it cost to enforce that identical provision against 
these people ? 

Mr. Marshall. That is a matter of dollars and cents which I think 
perhaps the Members of Congress might discuss and consider; but 
with me it is a question of human rights and humanity, which is of 
much more importance, and by the side of which I think all other 
questions dwindle into insignificance. 

Mr. Bennet. I agree with you. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. “To get down to brass tacks,” as 
our President would say, if I were a European anarchist and I desired 
to come into this country, would I not, under a provision of that kind, 
be clever enough to come in as an editor or a professional man ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And would I not be the very man 
that it is the desire of most people in this country to keep out ? 

Mr. Burnett. This provision does not refer to the man who comes 
in, but to the man after he has been here. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. But my point is that a man having 
that to work on would be clever enough to use it to our great disad¬ 
vantage. That is the way it occurs to me. 

Mr. Marshall. Taking up the Elvins bill, here are the different 
classes to be excluded from admission into the United States: 

Persons economically undesirable— 

If we could review these questions in the Supreme Court of the 
United States as you can review almost every question, there would 
be a series of very interesting lawsuits which I would be very glad 
to argue, if I had the opportunity, without fee, to determine what the 
meaning of that phrase is; but inasmuch as under the law there is 
no way of reviewing those questions, and everything is left to bureau¬ 
crats—and I use the word without any intent to offend or to use 
slighting language—or to people who have arbitrary power, let us 
see what would happen. 

“Persons economically undesirable.” Undesirable to whom? 
How undesirable? What is meant by “undesirable?” What is 
meant by “economically undesirable ?” Is it because they have not 
enough money, or is it because they have too much money? John 
D. Rockefeller might be economically undesirable to some people, 
and a man with only 50 cents in his pocket might be economically 
undesirable to other people, and yet they would not be, in fact, eco- 

49090—10-21 


322 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


nomically undesirable to the mass of mankind. But when you draft a 
great statute which is to be applied to 1,000,000 people a year, to use 
language of that sort is to make it easy for any administrative officer to 
do just as he pleases. If he should say “I think this man is economi¬ 
cally undesirable, ’ ’ how are you going to refute it ? What are you going 
to do about it? You have heard a great deal about the Chancellor’s 
foot, but there are some feet which, if applied to that language, 
would use it purely as a kicking-out process. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. You have no reference to Chicago, 
have you ? 

Mr. Marshall. No. I have no reference to any section. When I 
speak of a foot I merely speak of an ideal foot. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. There is a gentleman from Chicago 
on the committee. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Marshall. That language is absolutely dangerous. It is 
potent with mischief. We have gotten along without it so well, and 
this country has improved so much economically, as I have tried to 
show, notwithstanding the absence of that language, that I do not 
think we ought to have a law which would make every superin¬ 
tendent, or whatever he is called, of a landing station, a professor of 
political economy, and of his own political economy. It may be 
free trade in one place, it may be high tariff in another, and stand- 
pat in still another, and you do not know where you would get in 
acting on these various kinds of economic ideas. As to undesira¬ 
bility, one man might consider that a red-headed fellow was undesir¬ 
able, and another man might think that a man who had black hair 
would be undesirable, and some might think that a man without any 
hair would be undesirable. [Laughter.] 

As you see, there is great vagueness, and that is a thing we ought 
to avoid. We have had enough vague language. Some of you 
gentlemen understand what has happened as the result of vague 
terms. When opening a Pandora’s box we do not want to put addi¬ 
tional mischief into the box so as to do harm beyond the dreams of 
anybody at the present time. 

Mr. Burnett. I understood you to say in response to a question a 
while ago that you thought the law was good as it is. 

Mr. Marshall. I do not think it is ideal, but rather than go 
through this vexed question again year after year, and year after 
year, it is better to bear the ills we have than to fly to others that 
we know not of. We have this law now. All that is required, I 
think, in order to make it workable, is some improvement with 
regard to the administration of it. When proper regulations are 
made, so that people will have a chance to be heard, I think the law 
will work out all right; but I think we ought not to make any one 
of these changes under consideration. 

Here is the next thing: 

Male persons over sixteen years of age who do not possess in their own right at least 
one hundred dollars in lawful money of the United States or other money of equal 
value. 

One hundred dollars. Think of a man from Russia, from Rou- 
mania, fleeing for his life, the victim of a “pogrom,” or the members 
of a family fleeing as the result of an insurrection or a mob’s wild 
action, having $100 in their possession. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 323 

Mr, Goldfogle. That is 200 roubles in Russia, and a man who had 
it would be considered quite wealthy. 

Mr. Marshall. Perhaps the argument I am now making would 
be considered by you as a good argument against my position, but 
I would not be here if anything like that had been in force when my 
father came to this country. 

Mr. Kustermann. I would not be here, either. 

Mr. Marshall. My father had exactly 95 cents in his pocket 
when he landed in the city of New York on the 1st of September, 
1849. 

Mr. Bennet. I do not suppose my French refugee ancestor had 
anything. 

Mr. Marshall. Then my father was a little better off than he was. 

Mr. Bennet. Yes. 

Mr. Moore, of Texas. Perhaps the cost of living was not so high 
then. 

Mr. Marshall. My father has told me that he spent that 95 cents 
on peaches. He had been on a sailing vessel about sixty-three days, 
and he thought he would have something fresh to eat; so that when 
the day was over, he had not a red cent. He did not remain in New 
York. He went to work on the Erie Railroad, and then he helped to 
build the Northern Central. 

It seems to me inconceivable, when people are coming here, ready 
to be deposited right at our door, full of hope and ambition, that we 
should say to them: u We will not let you come in unless you have 
$100, or $25.” It is utterly contrary to the spirit of our institutions. 
I wonder what George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would have 
said if anybody had thought of such legislation in their day. I know 
what they would have said, because I have extracts from some of 
their writings in which both Washington and Jefferson speak of the 
great desirability of having immigration. And Rush, in his diary, 
when minister to England, said that the desire of foreigners to emi¬ 
grate to the United States was a very desirable thing, and that men 
are the best of all imports. 

I think it is a great deal better to have the man than to have the 
$100. This reminds me of the story told by Benjamin Franklin, 
which you all know, in connection with a property qualification for 
a voter, where it was desired that a man who had property worth $50 
should be a voter. He said, “ Suppose a man has a mule worth $50. 
Can he vote?” “Yes.” “Suppose the mule dies. What then?” 
“Then he can not vote.” “Well, does the franchise reside in the 
mule or in the man ? ” [Laughter.] 

Now, here is the next thing: 

Persons between the ages of sixteen and fifty years who can not pass the physical 
examination prescribed for recruits by the military regulations of the United States 
Army. 

I know that I could not pass that examination. I am nearsighted. 
There may be members of the committee who are nearsighted, or who 
may have other ailments, or who in other respects, perhaps, may not 
come up to the qualifications. It may be a matter of eyesight or a 
matter of weight, but all this is unnecessary. We have not had any 
trouble- 

Mr. Goldfogle. That squints very much toward compulsory mili¬ 
tary service ? 


324 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Marshall. Compulsory military service does not stand in the 
way of our immigrants. Our immigrants were in the Army of the 
United States and in the confederate army during the civil war, and 
they were pretty good soldiers at that. There were Germans who 
came to this country as fugitives from their Government, and they 
helped to fight the battles of the Republic. There have always been a 
large number of immigrants in our army, and are now, and Mr. Wolf, 
here, has written a book for the purpose of showing how many Jews 
there were in the army in the civil war. At a time when there were 
probably not more than one hundred to one hundred and fifty thou¬ 
sand in the United States there were 8,000 at least on the rosters of 
the army, and most of those people were recent immigrants. They 
had not been here many generations. They fought for their country. 
Nobody tried to avoid military duty. On the east side, in the Edu¬ 
cational Alliance—and I come to that once more—we had young men 
clamoring for the privilege of enlisting during the Spanish-American 
war. 

Mr. Goldfogle. In fact, they were among the very first who 
wanted to enlist. 

Mr. Marshall. I remember that it is one of the traditions of Syra¬ 
cuse, where I was born, that in the early part of 1862 there was 
enlisted a company from one Jewish congregation, Company A, One 
hundred and forty-ninth Regiment, every man of whom was a Jew, 
and every one of whom came from abroad, foreign born, and some 
of whom had not even had time to become citizens. 

Mr. Burnett. I want to supplement that by a statement that in 
the South during the civil war a brave old Jewish friend of mine, 
Major Herzberg, of Gadsden, Ala., a major in the Confederate army, 
was shot down and carried from the field of battle, thought to be m 
a dying condition. He lived for nearly forty years afterwards, and 
a few years ago died as the result of those wounds. 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. Mr. Wolf shows that there were 8,000, and 
he has by no means exhausted the list. 

Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether you 
intend to give ample time for gentlemen here from New York and 
Providence to be heard. I suppose you intend to adjourn soon. 

Mr. Marshall. I shall stop in two minutes. I think your sugges¬ 
tion is a wise one. 

Mr. Bennet. I think the committee is very much interested. 
There is no idea of adjourning. 

Mr. Marshall. The next thing is the illiteracy test: 

Persons over sixteen years of age, physically capable of reading and writing, who 
can not read and write English or the language of some other European country or 
Hebrew or Yiddish. 

I think I have discussed the question of the illiteracy test suffi¬ 
ciently. A man’s ability to work is not dependent upon the amount 
of learning he has. A man who has a willing mind and a strong body 
and a desire to work and to earn his livelihood is a man who is desir¬ 
able; and as has been suggested by Congressman Moore, the students, 
and the men of that type, the editors, etc., are not always the best 
citizens we can get. Some of them are anarchists. Many of them 
have been leaders of the anarchistic movement, and have done a 
great deal toward disseminating the seed of discontent. The man 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


325 


who works hard eight or ten hours a day has not much time for dis¬ 
seminating the seed of discontent. He does his work and gives 
value for what he receives. What more do you want ? He will be 
educated. He has the opportunity of being educated after he is 
here; but so far as his usefulness is concerned, that is not dependent 
upon his ability to read or write. I have known men who starved 
in seven languages, and who were unable to earn their living. I had 
one write me a letter last night, a man who is a physician, a man of 
education, who does not know where to go for money to pay his rent. 
The industrious immigrant is able to fight his way, and he is not 
dependent upon the United Charities, and the statistics show here 
that we are not troubled by the recent immigration with respect to 
the question of pauperism. The almshouses of the State of New 
York have a very small percentage of recent immigrants. There are 
many more people in the almshouse of native-born origin than those 
of recent immigration. The smallest percentage, according to the 
statistics of the New York State immigration report is composed of 
eastern and southern Europeans, so far as the almshouses are con¬ 
cerned; and as to the relationship of illiteracy and criminality, that 
subject has been fully discussed" and established to the advantage of 
the immigrant by the argument made by Mr. Sulzberger. 

Now comes another provision: 

Persons over sixteen years of age who do not bring a certificate of good moral charac¬ 
ter signed by and under the seal of the proper official or officials whose duty it is to 
keep such record in the community from which they come, which certificate shall 
state that such person has not been convicted of or indicted for having committed any 
crime involving moral turpitude or been an inmate of any almshouse, insane asylum, 
or prison. 

In other words, this requires that a man who comes to this country 
from Russia, or Roumania, for example, must bring with him a cer¬ 
tificate of good moral character. Who gives him that certificate of 
good moral character ? The police authorities, the public authorities. 
Gentlemen, do you think that people who are engaged in murdering 
the men of a certain race or of a certain class, and of stealing their 
property, are going to give certificates of good character to them? 
Do you think that that is such an easy thing to procure ? Why, one 
of the noblest men of our time, Nicholas Tschaikovsky, could not get 
a certificate of good character from Russia; and Madame Breshovsky, 
one of the noblest women in all the history of the world, has been con¬ 
demned to exile in Russia. She could not get a certificate of good 
character from that Government. Yet here we are trying to put 
upon the statute books of the United States a provision to the effect 
that before a person can be permitted to come here he must get a 
certificate of good character from such a government as that, or such 
a government as Roumania, which treats the Jews as aliens, although 
under the terms of the treaty of Berlin they were bound to be treated 
as citizens. 

That applies to all classes. It is only another way of indirectly 
saying that we will stop immigration. If you are goin^ to do it, if 
the Congress of the United States has made up its mind that it can 
afford to do it, do it openly and aboveboard, and say, “There shall 
be no more immigration;” but do not do it by indirection, by saying 
that a man must have $100 when he can not get it; by saying that he 


326 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


must be u economically desirable,” when you do not.know what that 
is; that he must be able to stand the test of physical examination 
prescribed for recruits by the military regulations of the United 
States Army; that he must be able to read and write English or some 
other European language; and that he must bring a certificate of 
good character. # . 

Let us suppose the case of a poor fellow who has just been driven 
out of his house and home in Odessa, or in any of these other places 
where “pogroms” are always being committed upon them. He says 
“I have got to go to America. Now, what have I got to do in order 
to go to America?” He looks at the Elvins and Hayes bills; and I 
think he will blow out his brains. There would not be anything else 
for him to do, because he could not come here and he could not stay 
there. He is driven from pillar to post. He does not know what 
is required of him. He may be a man who is 5 feet 2 inches in height, 
and not knowing anything about the military regulations of the 
United States Army he may suppose that he would be required to 
pass the examination prescribed for the grenadiers of Frederick. 

Other gentlemen here will discuss the question from other stand¬ 
points; but I have too much confidence in the good sense of the 
American people to believe that that kind of legislation is going to 
be put upon our statute books. 

The extracts referred to by Mr. Marshall are as follows: 

Extract from Nile’s Register, VII, 1817. 

[P. 359.] 

We have room enough; let them come. * * * But the emigrants should press 
into the interior. In the present state of the times we seem too thick on the mari¬ 
time frontier already. Within there is ample and profitable employment for all, in 
almost any branch of business, and strangers should be encouraged to seek it there.— 
Industrial Commission Report, Volume XV, page 449. 


Extract from the Second Annual Report of the Managers of the Society 
for the Prevention of Pauperism in New York City, 1819. 

[Industrial Commission Report, p. 449. ] 

First, as to the emigrants from foreign countries, the managers are compelled to 
speak of them in the language of astonishment and apprehension. Through this inlet 
pauperism threatens us with the most overwhelming consequences. From various 
causes the city of New York is doomed to be the landing place of a great portion of the 
European population who are daily flocking to our country for a place of permanent 
abode. This city is the largest importing capital of the United States, and a posi¬ 
tion from which a departure into the interior is generally considered the most easy 
and practicable. On being possessed of more extensive and active trade than any 
other commercial emporium in the Union, it naturally occurs to the minds of emi¬ 
grants that we possess great means of employment. Our situation is peculiarly 
healthy and no local objection, either physical or moral, exists to arrest the approach 
of foreigners. The present state of Europe contributes in a thousand ways to foster 
unceasing immigration to the United States. * * * An almost innumerable pop¬ 
ulation beyond the ocean is out of employment and this has the effect of increasing 
the usual want of employ. This country is the resort of vast numbers of those needy 
and wretched beings. Thousands are continually resting their hopes on the refuge 
which she offers, filled with delusive visions of plenty and luxury. They seize the 
earliest opportunity to cross the Atlantic and land upon our shores. * * * What 
has been the destination of this immense accession to our population, and where is 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


327 


it now? Many of these foreigners have found employment; some may have passed 
into the interior; but thousands still remain among us. They are frequently found 
destitute in our streets; they seek employment at our doors; they are found in our 
almshouses and in our hospitals; they are found at the bar of criminal tribunals, in 
our Bridewell, our penitentiary, and our state prison. And we lament to say that 
they are too often led by want, by vice, and by habit to form a phalanx of plunder 
and depredations, rendering our city more liable to increase of crime and our houses 
of correction more crowded with convicts and felons. 


Extract from the Report of the Industrial Commission, 1819. 

[Vol. XV, p. 462.] 

It had early occurred to those interested in bettering city conditions that one means 
of relief would be to assist migration to the interior, to country districts. 

This means, indeed, was suggested at the very time the immigration problem itself 
was formulated in the report ot the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism for 1819, 
already quoted from. The managers say: 

“It would prove a great relief could means of employment be found (for the immi¬ 
grants) when they enter our city. Many thousands who arrive in this country from 
Europe have been servants or manufacturers, and do not understand the art of hus¬ 
bandry; yet many arrive in destitute condition who have worked on the soil. A great 
many others are vigorous, healthy, and capable of learning the art of agriculture. 
Could some communication be opened with our great farmers and landholders in the 
interior, and ways and means be provided for the transportation of able-bodied for¬ 
eigners into the interior and labor be provided for them, it appears to the managers 
that beneficial consequences might flow from the expedient. Many, very many, 
foreigners who are honest and industrious and who, for want of employment, are liable 
to become paupers, would gladly depart into the country and labor upon the soil or 
in workshops could they thus obtain a bare living. In this case our city would be 
somewhat relieved, the number on our criminal calendar diminished, and the emigrant 
now on the brink of pauperism, or begging alms and receiving charitable aid, become 
useful to himself and to the community. Instead of bringing up his children in idle¬ 
ness, temptation, and crime he would see them amalgamated with the general mass 
of our population, deriving benefits from our school systems, our moral institutions, 
and our habits of industry.” 0 

“They (the Irish) had an utter distaste for felling forests and turning up the prairies 
for themselves. They preferred to stay where another race would furnish them with 
food, clothing, and labor, and hence were mostly found loitering on the lines of the 
public works in villages and in the worst portions of the large cities, where they com- 

f >eted with the negroes, between whom and themselves there was an inveterate dis- 
ike, for the most degrading employments.”& 


Extract from a Paper Entitled “Imminent Dangers to the Institutions of 
the United States through Foreign Immigration, etc.,” by “An American”— 
S. F. B. Morse, 1835. 

r (In speaking of the immigration of previous years as compared with that of the day:) 
Then, we were few, feeble, and scattered. Now, we are numerous, strong, and con¬ 
centrated. Then our accessions of immigration were real accessions of strength from 
the ranks of the learned and the good, from enlightened mechanic and artisan and 
intelligent husbandman. Now, immigration is the accession of weakness, from the 
ignorant and vicious, or the priest-ridden slaves of Ireland and Germany, or the out¬ 
cast tenants of the poorhouses and prisons of Europe. 


° Second annual report of managers of Society for Prevention of Pauperism in New 
York City, 1819. 

b Association for Improvement of Condition of the Poor, 1860, page 50. 






328 HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 

Extract from an Open Letter to Aaron Clark, Mayor of New York City, 
Signed “A Native.” 1837. 

When foreigners come to us in large bodies, they are desirous of living together, and 
by that course they preserve the whole current of their prejudices and national pecu¬ 
liarities and never become transformed to our habits of thinking and acting. * * * 
Not one-half of their sufferings are made public. Living in small apartments, des¬ 
titute of pure air, cleanliness, and wholesome food, they die in multitudes in every 
part of the country. * * * 

Our lands, under the culture of foreigners, will yield but little more than half as 
much as under our own husbandry. 


Extract from a Memorial to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the 

City of New York, by the General Committee of Native Americans, June, 

1837. 

* * * During the last seven years 296,259 foreigners arrived at this port (New 
York) alone—equal in amount to the present population of the whole city. Sixty 
thousand five hundred and fifty-one arrived in the year 1836—double the amount 
that came in 1830. Four thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight arrived here 
between the 9th and 13th of the present month—June, 1837. 

On the 1st of January, 1837, 982 foreigners and 227 native American citizens had been 
admitted to the hospital at Bellevue. The preceding year, on the 1st day of May 
last, there were in the almshouse 1,437 paupers. Allowing the same proportion of 
foreigners as in the hospital there would be 1,068 foreigners and 369 native American 
citizens in the almshouse. 

It appears from the report of a commission monthly appointed by the board of aider- 
men of this city that there are at the date of this report 3,070 paupers in the almshouse, 
more than three-fourths of whom are foreigners. How many more of this class live 
upon private charities? Let the swarm of mendicants who daily and nightly infest 
our streets attest. 

* * * At a recent date it appears that, the number of convicts confined in Sing 
Sing were 800, of whom 603 were foreigners. * * * 

In the year ending in August, 1836, there were received in the Boston house of 
refuge 866 paupers, 516 of whom were foreigners. From the 1st of January to April 
25, 1837, there were 264 paupers admitted to the same house of refuge, 160 of whom 
were aliens. 


Extracts from the “Address of the Delegates of the Native American 
National Convention,” Philadelphia, July 4, 1845.| 

It is an incontrovertible truth that, the civil institutions of the United States of 
America have been seriously affected and that they now stand in imminent peril 
from the rapid and enormous increase in the body of residents of foreign birth, imbued 
with foreign feelings and of an ignorant and immoral character. * * * 

But for the last twenty years the road to civil preferment and participation in the leg¬ 
islative and executive government of the land has been laid broadly open, alike to the 
ignorant, the vicious, and the criminal; and a large proportion of the foreign body of 
citizens and voters now constitute a representation of the worst and most degraded of 
the European population—.victims of social oppression or personal vices, utterly 
divested by ignorance or crime of the moral and intellectual requisites of political 
self-government. 

The almshouses of Europe are emptied upon our coast, and this by our own invita¬ 
tion—not casually, or to a trivial extent—but systematically and upon a constantly 
increasing scale. * * * The United States are rapidly becoming the lazar house 
and penal colony of Europe. * * * 


Extract from the Resolutions Adopted by the Convention, July 5 and 7, 1845. 

* * * Believing that ruin, if it come, will come through a perversion and abuse 
of that right (suffrage); 

Believing that such perversion and abuse to have already prevailed and to be now 
increasing to an alarming extent; 

Believing that the greatest source of evil in this respect is to be found in the rapid 
influx of ignorant foreigners, and the facility with which they are converted into 
citizens. * * * 





HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


329 


Extract from the Report of the Industrial Commission. 

[Vol. XV, p. 460.] 

“The almshouse returns show that about 86 per cent of the persons relieved by char¬ 
itable aid are of foreign birth, of which 69 per cent were Irish and about 10 per cent 
German, or nearly 7 Irish to 1 German. As the Irish population, however, is nearly 
twice that of the German, the actual ratio is about Irish to 1 German, and 5 Irish to 
1 American.” a 

In chronic pauperism, as contrasted with that temporary condition of want requiring 
relief into which any immigrant might fall while going through the process of indus¬ 
trial adjustment, the Irish were far in the lead. A confidential list published by one 
charitable society, of cases on their hands for three years and over, and giving names 
and addresses, showed that the great bulk of such cases were Irish. On this list, com¬ 
prising 650 names, there were only 4 which could be recognized as distinctly German; 
of the rest, all might, and a great majority must, have belonged to persons of Irish 
birth or descent. 


Extract from the Report of the Industrial Commission. 

(Vol. XV, p. 464.] 

The crude impression, then, that the less crowded a country the easier and more 
rapid is the dispersion of population, would seem to be quite the reverse of the truth. 
There was apparently a greater tendency for immigrants to remain in seaboard cities 
in 1817, when the interior was an untrodden wilderness, than in 1860. The fact seems 
to be (within limits and subject to modifications) that as the population increases and 
becomes more highly organized adjustment to the social framework and dispersion 
from cities become easier of accomplishment. Thus, in the first half of the nineteenth 
century the opening of the wilderness, the growth of manufacturing industries in 
interior towns and cities, the development of transportation and ways of communica¬ 
tion by mail and telegraph, were all means of facilitating the passage of the emigrant 
from the place where his presence was not desired and his labor not especially needed 
to places where his presence as particularly objected to and his labor was greatly 
needed. w 


Extract from the Report of the Industrial Commission. 

[Vol. XV. p. 455.] 

“So large are the aggregations of different foreign nationalities,” the report goes 
on to say, “that they no longer conform to our habits, opinions, and manners; on the 
contrary, create for themselves distinct communities, almost as impervious to Ameri¬ 
can sentiments and influences as are the inhabitants of Dublin or Hamburg. * * * 

They have their own theaters, recreations, amusements, military and national organ¬ 
izations; to a great extent their own schools, churches, and trade unions; their own 
newspapers, and periodical literature.” b 

* * * The inhabitants of the district were largely of foreign birth; about one- 
half the population were Irish, about one-fourth Germans, the remainder were Ameri- 
icans, Swedes and Danes. About two-thirds of the population were laborers and 
mechanics with their families; the remainder were retail shopkeepers and keepers 
of hotels and sailors’ and immigrants’ boarding houses. A large element of the popu¬ 
lation was a floating one, consisting of travelers, immigrants, sailors, and “vagabonds 
without a habitation and almost without a name.” c 


Church and State in the United States. 

[By J. P. Thomson, Boston, Osgood, 1873.] 

A very large percentage of vice and crime in the United States, especially in the 
great cities, is chargeable to European immigration. The police statistics of New 
York show that the vast majority of prisoners arrested for criminal offenses are of 
European birth, and of these, again, the great majority are natives of Ireland. 

a Report of Association for Improvement of Condition of the Poor, 1860, p. 49. 
b Report of the Association for Improvement of the Poor, 1867, p. 42. 
c Report Council of Hygiene, p. 5. 







330 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Thus, reared under the European systems of state religion, prisoners, baptized, taught 
and confirmed in state churches or, as in Ireland, reared under the imperious ecclesi¬ 
astical authority of Rome, become outlaws of American society. America owes to 
Europe those two deadly foes of evangelical religion, Romanism and Rationalism; 
while Mormonism is recruited almost entirely from Northern Europe. 

Hence the feeling is quite prevalent in the United States that a system of state 
religion tends toward practical heathenism and unbelief; that its training tends to 
substitute forms and dogmas for a personal religious faith, and its restraints and com¬ 
pulsions tend to produce a reaction against all belief; while the free religious system 
of the United States develops in church members the sense of personal responsibility 
and the spirit of religious activity; and the exhibition of these commands the respect 
of the community for religion and infuses into society a healthy moral sentiment, 
which in turn sustains the state in enforcing essential morality by the authority of law. 

Note.— Of 80,532 prisoners arrested by the police of New York in 1867, only 27,156 
were of American birth; and of the 53,376 foreigners who disturbed the peace of the 
city, 38,128 were Irish. From 1860 to 1868 there were within the precincts of the New 
York metropolitan police, 706,288 arrests. Of these there were 204,129 Americans, 
the foreigners numbering 502,159, of which 373,341 were Irish. This preponderance 
of foreign-born criminals is peculiar to New York, where naturally the worst elements 
of immigration would remain. The same ratio appears in the country at large 

The following facts are authentic. In prison in the United States on June 1, 1871, 
there were 32,901 prisoners thus distributed: 


Native whites. 16,117 

Colored people. 8,056 

Foreign born. 8, 728 


Total prisoners. 32, 901 


Native white population. 28, 111, 133 

Colored population. 4, 880, 009 

Foreign-born population. 5, 567, 229 


Total population.•. 38, 588, 371 

showing that (assuming all in prison to be criminals) there is at least one criminal in 
every 1,172 of the population, one in every 1,744 of our native white population, one 
in every 637 of our foreign-born population, and one in every 605 of our colored popu¬ 
lation. 

When European journals picture crime as abounding in the United States, they 
should have the candor to add that, though foreigners compose only one-sixth of the 
total white population, they furnish one-third of the white criminals, and, in the ratio 
of criminals, are on a level with the ignorant and degraded negroes. 

Their crimes are not a fruit of American society. 


Growth of cities (population in thousands). 


[Encyclopedia of Social Reform, New York, 1908, p. 234.] 


City. 

1800. 

1850. 

1 1890. 

1900. 

London. 

958 

62 

546 

173 

2,362 

660 

1,053 

378 

4,211 

2 740 


New York. 

OOO 

4 m 4 

Paris. 

2 ,448 
1,578 

2,714 
9 rm 

Berlin. 

Tokyo. 


uoo 
1 818 

Vienna. 

232 

431 

30 

408 

490 

400 

360 

560 

170 

400 

205 

308 

120 

329 

376 

1 341 ! 

1 A74 

Chicago. 

1^099 

1 047 

1, Oi Tk 

Philadelphia. 

81 

270 

300 

300 

150 

125 

800 

120 

90 

70 

77 

82 

1, Ui70 

1 9Q^ 

St. Petersburg. 

1 003 

i, zyo 

Constantinople. 

873 

822 

1 ,04 0 

Moscow. 

1, 1^0 

Bombay. 

821 

1, \Jv6 

Rio de Janeiro. 

800 

741 

1, ±60 
Q79 

Calcutta. 

016 

77 A 

Hamburg®. 

711 

« #0 
7KA 

Manchester b . 

703 

4 OU 

Buenos Aires. 

a 77 

0^±O 

i nnn 

Glasgow. 

4 

a*q 

1 1 ,uuu 

70 c 

Liverpool. 

U0O 
Cl ft 

1 oO 

£Q A 


Olo 

Oo4 


° Including Altoona. b Including Salford. 












































HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS 


331 


Population in cities of 100,000 or over. 

[Encyclopedia of Social Reform, New York, 1908, p. 235.] 


Country. 

1800 a total 
population 
in such 
cities. 

Per cent, 
of popu¬ 
lation. 

1850 a 
total. 

Per cent. 

1900 a total. 

Per cent. 

United States. 



1,393,338 

6.0 

14,208,347 
397,870 
13,193,487 
4,876,869 
d 9,108,814 
2,337,714 
1,606,699 
447,417 
3,318,939 
2,452,351 
505,763 
111,485 
876,069 
5,723,918 

18.6 

7.4 
30.5 
12.2 

d 16.1 
19.4 

8.7 
8.9 

10.0 

9.3 
2.6 

4.5 

8.8 

5.3 

Canada. 



Great Britain and Ireland. 

France. 

Prussia, Saxony, and Bavaria.. 

Holland and Belgium. 

Spain. 

Portugal. 

Italy. 

Austria. 

Hungary. 

1,032,745 
767,386 
186,380 
217,622 
167,607 
350,000 
890,000 
282,000 

b 9.7 
2.8 
61.8 
<11.5 

1.4 

9.5 
4.4 

2.6 

4,791,886 

1,656,900 

617,000 

518,587 

683,921 

275,826 

1,425,000 

484,942 

156,506 

6 22.5 
4.6 
<3.1 
<7.3 
4.4 

7.2 
6.0 
2.8 

1.3 

Greece. 



Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.. 
Russia. 

100,975 

595,000 

(/) 

1.4 

123,123 

1,123,698 

(/) 

1.6 

4,448,000 


13,249,987 


58,567,788 



n Approximate date, b England and Wales. c Prussia, d Germany. < Holland. /Sweden. 


Population of cities of 20,000 or over. 

[Encyclopedia of Social Reform, New York, 1908, p. 235.] 


Country. 

1800, a total 
population 
in such 
cities. 

Per cent 
of popu¬ 
lation. 

1850, a total. 

Per cent. 

1900,a total. 

Per cent. 

United States. 

Canada. 

201,416 

3.8 

2,271,680 
175,287 
7,6-10,912 
3,811,500 
2,784,000 
1,382,703 
1,489,688 
415,286 
2,500,000 
720,000 
526,002 

9.8 

7.4 

6 35.0 
10.6 
c7.8 
<21.7 
9.6 
10.7 

20,795,716 
689,448 
21,000,000 
8,668,036 
<*14,300,000 
3,587,525 
3,600,000 
470,606 
5,000,000 
4,044,000 
1,709,698 
212,762 
1,233,326 
10,792,247 

25.2 

11.9 

48.3 
22.2 

25.4 

28.9 
19.3 

8.7 

15.1 

14.1 
8.5 

8.8 

12.2 
8.4 

Great Britain and Ireland. 

France. 

Prussia. Saxony, and Bavaria. 

Holland and Belgium. 

Spain. 

Portugal. 

Italy. 

2,283,868 
1,840,386 
845,500 
721,342 
1,112,877 
380,000 
1,000,000 
449,000 
228,000 
31,125 
173,627 
1,088,000 

6 16.9 

6.7 

6 6.0 
<24.5 

9.7 
10.3 

Austria. 

Hungarv. 

Greece. 

3.5 

2.3 

4.2 

4.5 

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.... 
Russia'.. 

/ 3.0 
2.4 

297,795 
2,530,954 

/ 3. 4 
3.5 

10,355,141 


26,546,955 


96,103,364 



a Approximate date. c Prussia. < Holland. 

b England and Wales. d Germany. / Sweden. 


Some comparative statistics. 

[Encyclopedia of Social Reform, New York, 1908, p. 234.] 


City. 

Popula¬ 
tion. _ 

Area. 

Density 
per acre. 

Death 

rate. 

London. 

4,654,437 

4,014,000 

Acres. 

75,575 

197,760 

61 

16.6 

New York. 

20 

18.2 

Paris. 

2,714,000 
2,033,000 
1,674 000 
2,050,000 
1,500,506 

19,259 

15,676 

43,980 

121,920 

142 

17.2 

Berlin. 

130 

16.9 

Vienna. 

38 

18.3 

Chicago. 

17 

16.2 

Philadelphia. 

82', 880 

18 

21.2 

St. Petersburg (with suburbs). 

1,487,000 

71,679 

20 

23.7 

Hamburg. 

872,000 

94,693 

9 

17.9 

Manchester. 

631,185 

19,893 

31 

21.3 

Glasgow. 

798,778 

12,796 

63 

21.2 

Liverpool. 

710,337 

17,792 

40 

22.6 


























































































332 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Some comparative statistics —Continued. 



Year. 

Popula¬ 
tion per 
square 
mile. 

Population 
of United 
States if as 
thickly 
populated 
(approxi¬ 
mately). 

United Kingdom... . 

1906 

359.65 

1,600,000,000 

870,000,000 

570,000,000 

900,000,000 

Germany.. . . . . . . 

1905 

• 290.40 

France. . 

1905 

189.80 


1904 

303. 70 

Belgium. . 

1905 

629.60 

1,770,000,000 

680,000,000 

460,000,000 

Austria. 

1905 

235.03 

Hungary. 

1905 

160.36 



Note.—W hile there is no telling how large a population this country could actually support, there is 
no doubt that there is ample room in this country at this time, without overcrowding, for from two hun¬ 
dred and fifty to five hundred millions. 


Mr. Sabath. If you will permit me, I desire to say that there are 
present a number of gentlemen representing numerous Slavonic and 
Slavic organizations. They have been here since yesterday, and 
most of them are obliged to leave because of arrangements which 
they have made before leaving their respective homes. I have 
promised to secure for them a portion of the time of the committee 
so that they could be heard, and present their views on these bills, 
and I most respectfully insist that they be heard. 

Mr. Svarc, I believe, is obliged to leave this evening, and I think he 
would like to address the committee briefly. He represents some of 
the Slavonic and Slavic organizations and societies. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I think he should be heard now. 

Mr. Sabath. Therefore I ask that Mr. Svarc be given an oppor¬ 
tunity now to address the committee. 

Mr. Bennet. We will be glad to hear Mr. Svarc. 

STATEMENT OF MR. VEN SVARC, OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. 

Mr. Burnett. Mr. Svarc, what association or society do you 
represent ? 

Mr. Svarc. I have the honor to speak to you in behalf of the 
National Slavonic Society of the United States, numbering about 
40,000 members. They are scattered all over the length and breadth 
of the land; and also in Canada, where there is the largest Slavonic 
organization in the world. 

I do not believe, speaking generally upon the immigration prob¬ 
lem, I can add very much to the able and cogent arguments which 
have been advanced by those who have preceded me to-day, whom I 
have had the honor to listen to. I shall speak but briefly about the 
Slavonic immigrants who come from Austro-Hungary, particularly. 
There seems to be a widespread delusion about the" undesirability 
of the later comers from Europe, and we are at a loss to understand 
just what is meant by the immigrants from southern and eastern 
Europe. 

The Slavonic immigrant—and by that term I would include the 
members of the various Slavonic nations which go to make up the 
Slavic race—is not really a newcomer to America; and it is related 
















HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


333 


in history that if George Washington had married Miss Phillips, of 
Yonkers, N. Y., he would have married the descendant of a Bohemian 
family, and consequently the Slavs to-day would be in very close rela¬ 
tionship with the father of his country; for the Phillipses were Bohe¬ 
mian immigrants who came to this country in the seventeenth cen¬ 
tury. In those early times the exiles who were scattered throughout 
the world after the thirty years’ war numbered a great many Bohe¬ 
mian immigrants who came to the shores of America; and as 1 am 
aware of the fact that one of the members of your committee comes 
from the State of Alabama, I believe if you will refer to De Schwein- 
itz’s History of the Unitas Fratrum, or Moravian United Brethren, you 
will find that those Bohemian exiles of those days contributed their 
part to the development of the South, as well as to the development 
of the State of Alabama; for one of the exiles was one of the first 
pastors in the city of Savannah, Ga. They sent their missionaries 
through the South. They sent them through the civilized world, and 
one of the members of that same church, the Moravian church, was 
one of the greatest Indian missionaries the world ever knew. They 
also furnished a missionary to Greenland, who left the impress of his 
work there, and who died in the south of the United States. 

Mr. Burnett. The very first female college there ever was in the 
South was founded by a Moravian missionary association. 

Mr. Svarc. So that we who are of Bohemian blood, and I am proud 
to say that I am a descendant of a Bohemian family—my parents 
were immigrants—feel that we have done something in the develop¬ 
ment of this great land of ours. The Bohemians were probably the 
first Slavic people to emigrate—that is, in large numbers. They 
started to' emigrate to the United States after the great revolution 
that swept Europe in 1848, and by 1880 the great bulk of the 
Bohemian immigrants had already come to the United States. 
After them began to flock the other various Slavonic nations. The 
Poles followed the Bohemians, and then came the Slovaks from upper 
Hungary, and later on have been coming the Slavenes of western 
Austria. 

Still later came the Croatians, the Servians, and the Bulgarians, 
of southern Europe. So that the Slavic immigration to-day forms 
one of the great problems and constitutes, next to the Italians, I 
believe, the largest individual force of immigrants that is coming 
over. 

I have been very much interested in the remarks of Mr. Marshall 
here pertaining to the tests that have been laid down in this bill 
which has been discussed, viz, the illiteracy test and the test of the 
amount of money that an immigrant is to bring over with him. I 
assure you, gentlemen, that if some of these tests, particularly the 
money test, had been in effect heretofore, the Slavic immigration to 
this country would to-day be a very negligible quantity. 

It seems to me that when a bill is introduced in the Congress of 
the United States which contains the elements of the Elvins bill, 
we are certainly departing very widely from the traditions of the 
fathers who established this Kepublic—the traditions that ought 
to be part and parcel of every American heart and every American 
mind.* For there is not an element of our population—I do not care 
what it is—that did not come over because their ancestors were 
compelled to leave the home country by stress of political or religious 


334 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


persecution in some manner or other. After all, the great bulk of 
the American population are the children of refugees. We are the 
children of exiles in every stage of American history. And when 
you put down the qualification of literacy, or when you put down 
the qualification of the amount of money that an immigrant must 
have, even though you may be doing it in the belief that you are 
endeavoring to assist in building up the future of this country of 
ours, you are making a sad mistake. For if you stop to think you 
must come to the conclusion that a man is often not illiterate because 
of his choice; a man is often not illiterate because of his own indolence, 
but the economical, industrial, and political situation and environ¬ 
ments which surround him have made him so. 

Take the Slovak of upper Hungary, who is being ground between 
the upper and the nether millstones of political oppression, who is 
being persecuted because he dares to speak his mother tongue, be¬ 
cause the Magyar would make the country homogeneous and deprive 
him of the language of his fathers. He has not even an opportunity 
to go to school. Imagine the situation that exists with the child of 
a nation that is not allowed to teach its own mother tongue at home, 
when that child has not the opportunity to learn that tongue, and 
with the greatest difficulty must learn a tongue which is foreign to 
him in every respect. Imagine how much that sort of a person has 
the opportunity to acquire a literary knowledge, however elementary 
it may be. 

Mr. Burnett. May I interrupt you right there ? And yet, under 
all those conditions, less than 1 per cent of the Bohemians over 14 
years of age that come to this country are illiterate—one in a hundred. 

Mr. Sabath. Yes; that applies to the Bohemians. 

Mr. Burnett. Why is it that their neighbors, under the same con¬ 
ditions, could not acquire at least a rudimentary education ? 

Mr. Svarc. It is for this reason: In Bohemia they have autonomy; 
they have the management of their own schools. The Bohemians 
have been leaders in education. The Bohemian nation furnished 
the world one of its greatest educational reformers, a teacher who 
to-day is a model in education—John Amos Comenius. They have 
been noted for that. Having control of their own schools, they can 
educate their children. But the Slovaks of upper Hungary are 
enthralled. They have a hostile government which is trying to 
denationalize them; a government which has taken away from them 
all the elementary schools as well as the higher schools. They have 
absolutely nothing to say in governmental matters. They can not 
even protest; they dare not protest, for when they do they are cast 
into prison. They absolutely can not control the situation as far as 
education is concerned. 

Mr. Burnett. Then the same condition does not apply to them 
that applies to the Bohemians ? 

Mr. Svarc. No. 

Mr. Burnett. I asked that for information. 

Mr. Svarc. That, gentlemen, is also true of every nation in that 
part of Austria-Hungary which is ruled from Budapest. They are 
seeking now to denationalize the Croatians. They are seeking to 
denationalize the Roumanians in the East. In fact, the great dena¬ 
tionalizing policy is rampant there at the present time, and has been 
ever since 1868, when the Magyars received the power by dividing 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


335 


the Empire into two sections, and began ruling the part across the 
river Leitha from Budapest. Since 1868 these peoples have been 
deprived of the opportunity to learn their mother tongue. You 
can imagine that when a sudden crisis arises where they can not learn 
their mother tongue, and a totally foreign language is impressed 
upon them, it takes some time before the situation is cleared up so 
that they have an opportunity to gain an elementary education. I 
was wondering, gentlemen, when I read in the bill the provision that 
the immigrant must have a knowledge of the language of some 
European country what test would be put to the immigrant as to 
what country’s language he knew. 

Mr. Burnett. It may be any under the educational test. 

Mr. Svarc. Yes; but it says “ the language of a European country / 1 

Mr. Burnett. Does it not even say “or a dialect?” 

Mr. Svarc. It is not clear in that respect. That is the point I 
make. Suppose the Slovak came here knowing the Magyar tongue, 
which is forced upon him, and not being able to write in his own 
tongue, never having had that opportunity, he would, ipso facto, be 
excluded. 

Mr. Bennet. It says, “English, or the language of some other 
European country.” 

Mr. Svarc. Yes; but that is not the language of his country. 

Mr. Bennet. I understand that. 

Mr. Burnett. It does not say “of his country.” 

Mr. Bennet. It may be some other European country. 

Mr. Burnett. Then I would understand that to mean that if he 
could read the language of any European country, whether his own 
or any other, he would be qualified. 

Mr. Svarc. The situation arising under that act would be such 
that these poor people, who through no fault of theirs are illiterate, 
would be excluded; and I assure you, gentlemen, that they form one 
of the most valuable elements of our population. Take the Slovak 
race as a whole. I think I can safely say, without any hesitation, 
that it has formed one of the most valuable elements in our population. 
You can not complain of the distribution of the Slovak immigrants 
throughout this country. You will find them all over, extending 
from New York to San Francisco. You will find the Bohemian 
farmer scattered throughout Nebraska. You will find him in every 
county in Nebraska. You will find him in the broad fields of Iowa. 
You will find him in the Dakotas. You will find him in Minnesota, 
and you will find him in Wisconsin. 

Mr. Burnett. There are many of them in the district of my friend 
from Texas, Mr. Moore, and he tells me that they are very fine 
farmers. 

Mr. Svarc. And you will find them in Texas. I wish to say that 
in my own home county of Cuyahoga, in the State of Ohio, they are 
moving away from the city to the farms in northern Ohio. They are 
going back to the soil. The Slovak is employed at some of the hard¬ 
est kinds of labor. He works in the mines of Pennsylvania, and he 
works in the mines of Ohio and Illinois. When that great accident 
happened at Cherry, Ill., they became martyrs to their calling. 
You will find them working in the mines of upper Michigan. You 
will find them scattered throughout the whole breadth of this land, 
wherever hard work is required and wherever strong muscle and 


336 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


brawn is needed. They are the later comers. But take the little 
nation of Slovenians—there are not very many of them even at home; 
but do you know that that little nation has, for instance, furnished 
three bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Minnesota and in the 
Dakotas alone—a handful of people? These people are not new¬ 
comers, because they came over in the fifties, and settled up there in 
Minnesota. Of course their stream of immigration has been coming 
to us since that time. You will find the Croatians; you will find the 
Servians (people coming from what the restrictionists call southern 
Europe); you will find those handsome specimens of humanity, the 
Servians of Dalmatia, coming over here—men who tower 6 feet and 
more. Some of them are sailors—the finest specimens of manhood 
that come to our shores. When you seek to learn where they have 
gone you will find them working in the mines of the West; you will 
fin d them in Nevada, you will find them in Arizona, you will find them 
in Colorado, as well as throughout Pennsylvania. 

These people are newcomers. They have not yet begun to leave 
the hard and arduous work whicli they have undertaken. But 
sooner or later they, too, are going to gravitate to a higher and better 
sphere. But as my predecessors have stated, besides brain, besides 
education, and all that, you have got to have men in this country 
who are going to do the hard and arduous work which some of us, I 
know, are not very prone to undertake. And in order that we may 
get this element, which is going to develop this country and which 
has been developing this country, I need not apologize for the Slovak 
immigrant, because I know that his presence has been a blessing and 
a boon to the country. I know from personal experience in my home 
city of Cleveland, Ohio, what the foreign immigrant has done there. 
That is a city three-fourths of the population of which, probably, 
is made up of the foreign born and their children—a city which you 
might say was built up by the immigrants. These very immigrants 
have made the city of Cleveland, Ohio, the metropolis of the State. 
They have made it the greatest city between New York and Chicago. 

From the standpoint of sociology, I believe that those same immi¬ 
grants will make a showing second to none in the matter of their per¬ 
sonal conduct, in the matter of criminality, and all that. I do not 
care where you go, you will find that the Slovak immigrant contributes 
no more than can be expected of him as to criminality, as to pauper¬ 
ism, and all that. 

I am often amused, in thinking about the complaint which is made 
against the immigrant generally, that he furnishes paupers and that 
he furnishes criminals, by the fact that these gentlemen who are criti¬ 
cising the immigrant from that standpoint fail to remember that the 
immigrant is only human. He is just as human as the native born. 
Being human, he has his criminals and he has his paupers. But, as 
has been so ably demonstrated before you here to-day by preceding 
speakers, the immigrant does not contribute any more toward pauper¬ 
ism and toward criminality than what is to be fairly expected. 
Bringing the energy that he does, bringing the intelligence that he 
does, bringing the brawn and bringing the muscle that he does, sooner 
or later he is bound to rise in the scale, and is bound to become a use¬ 
ful American citizen. 

We must have in this country the drawers of water and the hewers 
of wood, and we are getting them. If the United States is to go on 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


337 


and is to prosper, there should be no more restrictive legislation 
placed upon the books. We believe that the law as it now stands is 
more than sufficient if properly administered. And on behalf of the 
people whom I have the honor to represent here to-day, we protest 
against any further restrictive measures. We do it not from a selfish 
standpoint; we do it because we love this country of ours and we do¬ 
it because we love humanity. 

I thank you. 

(After an informal discussion as to who should be the next speaker, 
it was announced that the committee had decided to limit the dura¬ 
tion of each speech to fifteen minutes.) 

STATEMENT OF MR. LEON SANDERS, OF NEW YORK CITY. 

Mr. Sanders. Mr. Chairman, I appear before you as grand master 
of a Jewish fraternal organization having a membership of 134,000 

E ersons living in different parts of the United States. The executive 
oard of that organization, at-a special meeting held last Monday 
night, adopted resolutions protesting against the passage of any 
restrictive immigration law, believing that the existing laws are in 
themselves sufficient to protect this country against undesirable 
immigrants, and that all that is required is a proper interpretation of 
the law in a humane sense. This organization has directed me to 
come here; and I am glad to be given the opportunity to express my 
views, particularly upon two of the questions that are under discus¬ 
sion. 

One of those questions is in regard to the illiteracy test. I notice 
that the gentlemen who have spoken here to-day with regard to the 
illiteracy test have spoken on the subject as they understand it and 
as they know it. But none of them are born Russians, and they do 
not understand the conditions that prevail in Russia as I do, since 
I myself am an immigrant who arrived at this country something 
like twenty-eight or twenty-nine years ago. I was compelled to come 
here by the Russian “pogroms.” I was obliged to flee from my 
native place, and all that I had with me was just my clothes. I 
came here to this strange land, a stranger among strangers, with no 
relatives or friends to help me. And if we had then had upon our 
statute books any such laws as are now sought to be placed tnere by 
the bills that are under consideration by your committee I feel that 
I would have been one of those unfortunates who would have been 
sent back to a place where I could not go without risking my life. 

The illiteracy test is one to which we object, because we feel that 
it will be particularly harmful to those who have made our best 
citizens since they have arrived in this country. Under the laws 
of Russia the Jews are compelled to live within a certain pale— 
within certain settlements allotted to them. No school can be 
opened by them unless it receives the sanction of the Government. 
That sanction is very seldom given, and only a certain percentage 
of the Jews are permitted to take advantage of the schooling. The 
result is that only those who can afford to buy their way in or who 
can afford to bribe the officials have an opportunity to get an edu¬ 
cation. The others are compelled to pick up what education they 
can from their parents or older brothers or other relatives. 

49090—10-22 


338 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


These people who have come here have become Americans by 
choice. They have come here to better their condition. They did not 
come here to exploit the country and get its benefits and send them 
back to Europe. They have come here to stay. They have given 
the best that there is in them to make this country greater and 
better. 

Speaking for myself as one of these immigrants (as I said, I came 
here twenty-eight years ago), I have done my share, and I assume 
that I represent thousands of others who have done their share, to 
try and make this country a better country and a good country to 
live in. Many laws that now are on the statute books of the State of 
New York are laws that I had the honor of introducing, and which 
were passed at a time when I had the honor of serving in the legisla¬ 
ture with Mr. Bennet, of your committee. Since then I have been 
elevated to the bench. An opportunity was given to me such as is 
given to every one of those who came here with the intention of be¬ 
coming American citizens, becoming Americanized, and imbibing the 
full spirit of our American institutions. 

We object to this illiteracy test, as I say, for the reason that it is 
going to work a hardship upon those who make up our best citizen¬ 
ship. It will keep away from this country thousands of people who 
are seeking America as an asylum, and are seeking to give all that 
they have to give—their brain, their brawn—for the purpose of de¬ 
veloping the resources of the country. 

As to the head tax, I can not understand that this country is in 
such a bankrupt condition that it requires a tax from the poorest of 
the poor—those who come here to better their condition—in order to 
help meets its expenses. If a head tax is intended for the purpose of 
preventing undesirables coming here, it needs no argument on my 
part to show its futility. Those who come here who have succeeded 
in robbing their neighbors are very well able to pay a head tax, but 
for the man who flees with nothing but his life to have the gates of 
America shut in his face because he has not sufficient money will be 
a crying outrage. It is entirely un-American. It is something that 
no man proud of his citizenship in this country can countenance. 

We object to the bill for these reasons. We feel that the Congress 
of the United States ought not to be false to the traditions of this 
nation—that there is room enough in the United States for all those 
who seek this country as an asylum, for all those who flee from the 
oppressor’s hand, and there are plenty of localities where they can 
improve the country and at the same time improve their own condi¬ 
tion. 

I have traveled somewhat through the United States. I have seen 
where our people live. I have seen the opportunities of which they 
have taken advantage, and I know that everywhere they have made 
the best kind of citizens. Everywhere they have mingled with the 
people, and have become Americans in spirit and in every possible 
way. Our people do not permit immigrants to become subjects for 
public charitable institutions. In the city of New York we do all 
that we can to prevent congestion. We do all that we can to prevent 
them from becoming public charges. The Hebrew Shelter and Immi¬ 
grant Aid Society, of which I have the honor of being president, and 
which has charge of the Jewish immigrants that come through the 
port of New York, maintains an immigrant home, where the immi- 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


339 


grants who are permitted to land are given a place where they sleep, 
are given meals, and are given employment. If they have not any 
trade, we try to teach them a trade; and we keep them there until 
they become self-supporting. We try to send them out through 
various portions of the country. 

If you gentlemen who reside in New York, or who have occasion to 
come to New York, would visit our place on Monday and Thursday 
nights, you would see hundreds of immigrants sitting there listening 
to lectures as to the opportunities to be had in other portions of the 
country outside of the city of New York. You would see the stere- 
opticon views that are shown to them of large cities outside of New 
York. Many of them imagine that New York City is the whole of 
the United States of America. When they are shown these things 
the result is that thousands of them leave New York. Many of them 
take advantage of the opportunities given to them by the organiza¬ 
tion to which our friend Mr. Sulzberger refers, because they require 
financial aid to help them go to certain places outside of New York. 
In the case of those who have their own funds, thousands of them go 
to different portions of the country; and everywhere we hear nothing 
but good reports about them. 

We strenuously object, as much as we possibly can, to the enactment 
of any laws which will have a tendency to restrict immigration. The 
laws are good enough as they are. All that we require is humane 
interpretation. All that we require is to have at the head of the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, and as its representatives, men 
who have hearts—hearts that feel for the unfortunate; hearts that 
will not keep out of the country the desirables, and will not shut in 
the face of the oppressed of the peoples of Europe the opportunities 
that they can have here. We want them there. The country has 
lost nothing by immigration. The country has gained; and there is 
lots of room for them. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ABRAM I. ELKTJS, OF NEW YORK CITY. 

Mr. Elkus. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, with 
your permission I should like to take up and answer one or two ques¬ 
tions which were asked by members of the committee with reference 
to the working of the present act and its administration. That 
subject is germane to the present inquiry, because after you hear what 
I have to say from actual experience of how the present act operates 
you will readily see how much more serious and how much more 
difficult and oppressive will be the operation of the proposed act. 

In the first place, as you all know, in the present act we have a 
provision that a man shall not be admitted who is liable to become a 
public charge. I propose to touch lightly upon one or two cases 
which have come within my own personal experience, and give you 
the facts about them in order that you may see how that provision 
operates. 

A man came to this country who was 33 years old, and had a wife 
and two children, whom he left in Russia. He only had with him 
$4.95. He was in splendid health. He was excluded on the ground 
that he was liable to become a public charge. An appeal was taken 
in his case to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. The appeal 


340 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


was not sustained; it was dismissed. When we came to look into 
that case, what do you suppose we found ? That while the man had 
only that amount of money with him, he owned in Russia (a most 
unusual thing) the house he lived in and land that was worth over 
4,000 rubles (about $2,000), and that he told the immigration com¬ 
missioner: u If you will let me cable home, I can have $500 remitted 
to me by cable.” Yet that man was excluded; and he was on the 
ship, about to be deported and sent back as an undesirable alien, 
when, with the intervention with the writ of habeas corpus, we forced 
the commissioner to admit him. 

That was only one of four cases which we took up as test cases. 
We picked out four cases at random from a batch of over 50 men, I 
think, who were ordered to be deported. 

Mr. Burnett. Was this man a Jew? 

Mr. Elkus. He was. 

Mr. Burnett. A Russian Jew ? 

Mr. Elkus. A Russian Jew. 

Mr. Burnett. 1 thought in Russia they did not permit them to 
own land. 

Mr. Elkus. I thought so, too; but he owned it. In some parts of 
Russia, I believe, they can. 

Mr. Sanders. Within the pale? 

Mr. Elkus. Within the pale; yes. 

Mr. Bennet. And in certain cities within the pale. 

Mr. Elkus. Another man of that lot had only a few dollars in 
money, but he had left a business at home- 

Mr. Marshall. It is a leasehold. In certain places they have no 
right to own the land itself, but they have a leasehold interest. 

Mr. Elkus. Anyway, there was not any doubt that he had that 
money; and after the commissioner of immigration in New York had 
investigated the facts he consented to his admission. Through some 
hugger-muggery of the law they withdrew their order of deportation 
(although somebody said it could not be done), and those men are 
now useful residents of this country. 

There was at the same time another case of a man who was ex¬ 
cluded because he had only a few dollars with him. He was young, 
able-bodied, active, and belonged to a skilled trade; yet he was 
excluded. It was found that he had a large and successful business 
in Russia. He was a representative of the best class of immigrants 
that come here, yet he was excluded under that elastic phrase, that 
he was “liable to become a public charge.” 

What would have happened if we had had the “economically 
undesirable” clause in addition? 

Mr. Sabath. Will you pardon me right here? 

Mr. Elkus. Certainly. 

Mr. Sabath. I understand, Mr. Elkus, that you are a lawyer? 

Mr. Elkus. Yes. 

Mr. Sabath. I had a case brought to my attention only about 
three weeks ago, where 20 Bulgarians arrived in Galveston, Tex., 
the youngest 18 years of age, the oldest 35. They were all able- 
bodied. They had more than $800 among them (about $40 apiece), 
or somewhere near that amount. They were deported, because the 
commissioner there ruled that they were liable to become a public 
charge, because there' was no immediate demand for them there. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


341 


Mr. Elkus. I will tell you something worse than that, sir. 

Mr. Sabath. Do you think that was a proper and fair and just 
ruling on the part of the officials of the immigration department ? 

Mr. Elkus. I certainly do not; and I will tell you a worse case 
than that. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Elkus, I know that you have studied this law 
more particularly recently. Do you find anything in the law that 
justifies a board of inquiry to pass on the question as to whether 
there is an economic demand for the immigrant in the place of 
landing ? 

Mr. Elkus. No, sir; I do not. Not only that, but I say that no 
higher official has such a right. I told the Secretary so, and Mr. 
McHarg said to me: “I would admit some of these men if they were 
going somewhere else than to New York.” I said: "How do you 
know they are going to stay in New York? The fact that they say 
they have a cousin or a brother-in-law somewhere in New York or 
in Philadelphia does not prove that they are going to stay there. 
What business is it of yours, because you think they will be useful 
in some other part of the United States, to determine that you will 
admit them if they will go there, even if they have not got a dollar ?” 
He said: “Well, 1 never looked at it in that way.” But the point 
was this, and the whole trouble arose in this way, and you will see 
just what would happen if we had a statute containing such loose 
language as the one referred to here: 

The commissioner in New York issued an order—we call it a rule, 
but he said it was an “intimation”—which was practically to the 
effect that no immigrant should come here and be admitted who did 
not have $25 in cash with him. He said: “I am going to raise the 
standard of inspection.” Well, of course, after that broad “intima¬ 
tion” (if you want to be polite about it) every immigration inspector 
went to work and began to see how many immigrants he could keep 
out: Instead of asking these men, as was their duty, questions which 
would bring out all the facts, they asked them the bald and naked 
question: “How much money have you got with you?” If you 
take a poor Russian immigrant, coming over here after going through 
what he has gone through with the Russian officials, and ask him 
how much money he has with him, which is usually followed by 
“Show it to me and give it to me,” what do you think the result will 
be ? Why, naturally, most of those men, even if they had a couple 
of hundred dollars in their pockets, would say, “Four dollars and 
ninety-seven cents,” because they would be afraid the next question 
of this uniformed official would be, “How much of it can I have? or 
you can not get in.” 

Mr. Sabath. That also applies to the Poles that come in here, and 
to others, does it not ? 

Mr. Elkus. Every one of them. I do not mean to limit it to Jews 
or to Russians. It applies to every one of that kind of men. 

When the inspectors got that “intimation” from the head of the 
office, they began to see if they could not live up to it. Commis¬ 
sioner Williams himself, after he got through investigating these 
cases on the facts that were laid before him, told me that one of the 
great troubles of his office was that his subordinates were not suffi¬ 
ciently competent to fulfill their duties. I said: “Then why do you 
not permit these men, who are on trial, really, for their liberty”— 


342 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


because it means liberty for them to enter this country—“to have 
counsel down here, who would bring out these facts ?” If you will 
read the records in those cases, you will find that they are enough to 
astound any man who is used to a fair trial or a fair hearing on any 
question. They ask the baldest, simplest questions; and then they 
throw the burden on the poor immigrant, and say to him: “Why 
didn’t you prove these facts ?” They expect him to do that, with no 
knowledge of the law, with no knowledge of his rights, with no per¬ 
mission to have anybody to help him. 

So much for that. 

Mr. Bennet. And a prohibition in the rules against any lawyer 
charging him more than $10. 

Mr. Elkus. We can give him all the lawyers he wants, because 
there are so many of us in New York—among others yourself, Mr. 
Bennet, or Judge Goldfogle—who would be only too glad to help any 
deserving immigrant who wants to come in. That ten-dollar limita¬ 
tion may be a good thing and it may be a bad one; but we are not 
quarreling with that so much as we are with the fact that a lawyer is 
prohibited from going down there when the man is on trial and assist¬ 
ing him in the way a lawyer best can assist a man—by bringing out 
all the facts. 

One of the gentlemen asked here what was being done in New York 
toward making these men go out on the farms, teaching them to be 
farmers, and teaching them trades. That is a work that I have been 
particularly connected with, as one of the trustees of the Baron de 
Hirsh fund. I wish you gentlemen who think nothing is being done 
to make the young Jew from the East Side a farmer would come to 
Woodbine, N. J., some day, and see that farm school there. I wish 
you would come and see these young men from the much-defamed 
East Side of New York—young men from 18 to 25 years of age, who 
have saved up enough money, earned by hard work, to be able to go 
there and learn to become farmers, or farmers’ assistants, farmers’ 
helpers. They stay there six months or a year, or two years, and 
graduate to the number of 75 a year, and go out all over the country 
as farmers’ assistants. I wish you could read the letters the super¬ 
intendent of that school has, not alone from these boys, but from their 
employers, asking for more help of the same kind, and praising those 
that have been sent to them. I wish you could read the letters from 
the boys themselves, from all over the country, telling of their suc¬ 
cessful life as farmers. So great has been the success, not alone of the 
school, but of the boys as farmers’ assistants, that the superintend¬ 
ent wrote me the other day that he had found places a month before 
graduation for every boy who graduated this spring. The superin¬ 
tendent (a man of education and character and learning) is a Rus¬ 
sian refugee, who fled from Russia by reason of one of the 
“pogroms’’ which have been alluded to here. He is a man of the 
highest culture and the finest type, who landed here without a dollar 
in his clothes. I suppose if he came to-day, or a few days ago, he 
would be excluded because he did not have $25, on the ground that he 
was liable to become a public charge. 

Mr. Sabath. That would apply to two members of this committee. 

Mr. Elkus. Yes, sir; and it would have applied to my own father. 
My father came here, and he did not stay in New York, either. He 
went down to Alabama. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


343 


Mr. Burnett. To Alabama? 

Mr. Elkus. Yes, sir; he went to Mobile, Ala. 

We have another school in New York—a trade school. It is not a 
school where we turn out, at the end of four or five years, skilled 
mechanics, or gentlemen who are fit to be superintendents; but after 
a course of training of six months as machinists, as electricians, as 
carpenters, or as painters, the pupils are turned out to become 
journeymen. And I should like to refer here to the argument or 
suggestion that has been made that these men cut down the wages 
of the others. As a matter of fact, they all become members of 
unions. 

A typical instance of what is accomplished by the young men who 
go through that school was shown the other day. In 1904 a young 
man came to this country, a Roumanian Jew, at the age of 18. 
He entered that school in 1905. He was there six months, taking 
the course as an electrical worker, and graduated. He wrote the 
other day that at the time he entered he earned $4 a week as an 
errand boy. When he left he was able to earn $12 a week as an 
assistant electrician. A year afterwards he wrote that he had joined 
the union, and was receiving $5 or $5.50 a day And the other day 
he wrote that he had successfully passed a competitive examination, 
and had received a position in Chicago, as an electrical instructor, at 
a salary of $2,000 a year. There is the case of a poor Roumanian 
Jew coming to this country, absolutely ignorant, not knowing any¬ 
thing at the age of 18, and now, at the age of 23, he has achieved 
that distinction. 

Mr. Sabath. I wish to add that Chicago does appreciate all these 
people, and appreciates their work. It is always easy for them to 
obtain such positions in our great city. 

Mr. Elkus. I am very glad to hear it. 

I think the cry about congestion that has been so much uttered is 
really very much of a false alarm. There are many Jewish farmers in 
and about New Jersey; and I know of many instances where they have 
been successful farmers. I was told the other day of a farmer near 
Woodbine, a Russian refugee, a man with live or six children, who 
had been farming down there, I believe, for five or six years on a farm 
of 15 acres, and had managed to support himself and his family 
nicely. He had his own home, and had saved a thousand dollars in 
one year. That is the type of Jewish farmer that is going around the 
country ; and I think it is a type that ought to be encouraged. 

Now, gentlemen, the hour is late, and there are others who want to 
speak. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You can go on, Mr. Elkus, if you have anything 
further. 

Mr. Elkus. I have just a few more words. 

Mr. Bennet. May 1 ask you a question, Mr. Elkus ? 

Mr. Elkus. Surely. 

Mr. Bennet. Is not the question as to where these people go very 
largely an economic question—a question of supply and demand? 

Mr. Elkus. Very much so; and it is also a question of getting to 
this country and finding out, after they get here, what can be done. 
And that leads me right to a topic I want to touch upon: I think it 
was one of the provisions of the immigration law that a compilation 
of the statutes and of the decisions should be made from time to 


344 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


time. There has not been one made for many years—I think for 
nine or ten years. That has caused a great deal of misinformation 
to be given to immigrants or intending immigrants, not only before 
they leave their native country, but after they arrive here. They 
do not know exactly of the possibilities and the probabilities of this 
country. If some information—not rose-colored or gold-colored, 
but plain, concise information—could be given to intending immi¬ 
grants in their native land as to the possibilities of success in different 
parts of this country, there would not be any problem of congestion 
worth talking about. 

As Mr. Marshall said, and as Mr. Sulzberger pointed out, these men 
have not any particular desire to stay in one city, or in one State, or 
in one part of the country. They would just as soon make their 
homes in the West or in the South. No doubt you have all had that 
called to your attention by reason of the immigration to Galveston. 
They go there in great numbers, now that the}^ have been diverted 
there by means of private enterprise. 

Why should not this Government, through some one of its officials, 
and through proper channels, disseminate such information in a 
broader and wider and a more authoritative way, so that more of 
these immigrants—not alone Russians or Jews, but those from all 
parts of Europe—would go to those parts of the country that the 
Government thinks need immigration ? 

The fact that the country needs immigrants for its work has been 
amply demonstrated. There can not be any question that certain 
parts of the country need immigrants. , I was told by the managers 
of several of the New England mills that they welcome the immi¬ 
grants there as workers in the mills; that they have found that they 
rapidly become Americanized and become citizens. 

As to their becoming Americanized and becoming citizens in New 
York, it is only necessary to go to an 3 T of the public schools, the night 
schools, and the private schools that are provided by the educational 
alliance, to see how eager, how anxious, how more than willing, every 
one of these men and women and children is, not only to become 
acquainted with our language and our customs, but to become thor¬ 
oughly acquainted with the spirit of Americanism and to try their 
best to become American citizens of the real type. That they value 
their franchise when they get it is beyond dispute, because it is the 
great East Side that over and over again has decided municipal elec¬ 
tions and presidential elections. There they think before they vote. 
No party can claim them absolutely as its own, because they, of all 
men, since they never had the right to exercise the franchise before 
they came here, really value it. 

That they read at times newspapers printed in other than the 
English language, is so. One man said to me, when 1 spoke v T ith 
him on the subject: “X work from 7 in the morning until 8 at night. 
I have learned English with great difficulty, because I came here 
when I # w r as over 40 years old. I w^ould like to read the English 
newspapers, but I find it difficult to read when I am tired. I want 
to know what is going on in this country, however, and so I read what 
I can read easily.” But each day he"had set for himself a task of 
reading something in English, so as to force himself to learn it. So 
eager was he for knowledge of passing events—and he showed by his 
conversation with me in English how^ much he knew o* what was 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


345 


going on in the world—that not only did he read the stint he had set 
for himself in English, but he read the Yiddish newspaper. He did 
that so that he might know what was going on. 

Is not that man to be encouraged ? Is he to be forced (if we could 
force him to do so) to read only something that with difficulty he 
understands after his long day’s work? 

Mr. Goldfogle. These papers printed in Yiddish, to which you 
have reference, are well edited, mold public opinion, tend toward 
the Americanization of the people who read them, convey to them the 
news of the day, and in other respects operate to inform their readers, 
just as do the papers published in English. Their publishers have 
the means to .carry on the papers; they receive the news over the 
telegraphic wires just as do the other papers. In short, they are 
regular newspapers of street and stand and mail circulation. Is. not 
that so? 

Mr. Elkus. Entirely so; entirely so. 

There is one other subject that I wish to touch upon, and then I 
shall have finished. 

Mr. Ada ir . Just a moment. I may have been misunderstood by 
you when I asked one of the other gentlemen as to what effort was 
made to instruct and teach these people to read the English news¬ 
papers. I did not mean to say, or even to insinuate, or have it under¬ 
stood that I thought that they ought not to be permitted to read 
newspapers published in any language. I think they should. I 
think that if they are not able to read the English language, they 
should read newspapers published in the language they can read, in 
order that they may know what is going on m the country. Under 
no consideration would I take their newspapers away from them. I 
would be with their newspapers like I would be with Judge Gold- 
fogle’s tobacco. I would not want to take his tobacco away from 
him. I suppose he has a right to chew if he wants to chew. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. Goldfogle. I do not happen to smoke. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Adair. I am very willing that they shall have their own news¬ 
papers and read them. I only asked the question so that I might 
know what effort was made toward encouraging them to take up 
the English language and be able to read the English language. 

Mr. Elkus. Why, every effort is made. I think the best evidence 
of their desire to learn is this: I should think the person who would 
be least likely to have the time or the inclination to study a foreign 
language would be a woman who came to this country at the age of 
30 or 35, who is the mother of 4 or 5 children, and who has little or 
no spare time. Yet, if you will go to the Educational Alliance in 
New York City on certain hours in the morning, you will find large 
classes of those women, those mothers, stealing away the hours from 
their children to come and learn not only English, but American cus¬ 
toms and American ideas. 

Mr. Adair. That is very commendable indeed. 

Mr. Bennet. Just describe how large a building that Educational 
Alliance is. 

Mr. Elkus. It is a 5-story building at the corner of Jefferson street 
and East Broadway. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Yes; at Jefferson street and East Broadway. It 
is in my district. 


346 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Elkus. I suppose it is about 50 by 150. 

Mr. Sabath. It is about the same size as our Jewish Institute in 
Chicago. 

Mr. Elkus. You took away our superintendent. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Marshall. And it is used so much that the stairs, which are 
stone, are badly worn. 

Mr. Elkus. Yes; the stone stairs are worn through. 

Mr. Bennet. And the building is devoted entirely to educational 
purposes. 

Mr. Elkus. I want to give you an idea of the bo}V zeal for Ameri¬ 
canism. In the village of Woodbine everybody is a Jew. Even the 
policeman is a Jew. They have a fire company there; they have 
everything to teach the children civic pride and the whole American 
idea; and they run it very well. They have a boys’ school there, out¬ 
side of the public schools, to teach them the elements of the Jewish 
language and the Jewish religion. The little bo}^s—8, 10, and 12 
years old, and under 13—had a teacher there who only spoke Yiddish; 
and the boys would not go to the school until they got a teacher who 
spoke to them in English. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Sabath. That is good. 

Mr. Elkus. They said they would not talk Yiddish any more; they 
were Americans. That is the spirit of it; and it is a true example of 
what the real spirit of these boys is. You never saw in your whole 
life anybody more anxious to get rid of the Russian taint than these 
boys and these men and women who come from Russia; and it is that 
spirit which pervades all of them who come here. 

Why should you put such tests upon those children, or their 
brothers or sisters or lathers who want to come here, to try and keep 
them out ? If you make any such provision in an act as that anybody 
who is “economically undesirable” is to be kept out, just imagine 
what is going to take place at Ellis Island! The three immigration 
inspectors will solemnly convene. Inspector So-and-so will say: 
“Mister, how much money have you got in your clothes ?” The man 
will say: “I have got a dollar and ninety-eight cents; I have got fine 
health and constitution, and I am a carpenter by trade.” “Excluded 
as economically undesirable!” Or perhaps he has not a certificate of 
good moral character. There has been some reference made to cer¬ 
tificates of good moral character. From what I know and from what 
I have read (and I am sure those of you who have been to Russia will 
agree with me), I assume that those certificates will be framed and 
ready for sale, and the price will be according to the frame that goes 
around them. If it is gilt-edged, it will cost so much. If it is only 
framed in plain wood, it will cost so much less. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Bennet. There will not be any framed in plain wood. 

Mr. Elkus. No; they will insist on something more expensive. 

Mr. Burnett. There is nothing in the law, I believe, that requires 
any framing. 

Mr. Elkus. The frame will be the ornamentation for which the 
charge will be made. 

Mr. Burnett. That will show that they are economically desir¬ 
able ? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Elkus. Yes, sir. That will be the economical part of it. 

Another suggestion was made here by one of the members of the 
committee who is not here now; but I will answer it anyhow. He 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


347 


asked with some particularity as to whether or not the immigrants 
who came here did not have a feeling of resentment against the Gov¬ 
ernment. He did not put it quite as strongly as that, but that they 
were rather gathered together here with a feeling of some sort against 
the law. It is my experience, from seeing some of these men, and 
from what I have learned from others—because I know a great many 
who have given up their time, and some of them have really given up 
their lives, to work among the poor and these people on the East Side 
of the city who are recent immigrants—that there are no more law- 
abiding people anywhere than the Russian immigrants and the 
Roumanian immigrants. They respect the law. They are tenacious 
of their rights when they believe they are right; but they are easily 
handled. In the case of the shirt-waist strike, which was referred to, 
I was told by one of the ladies who was interested in them that these 
girls who had lately landed in this country showed the most surprising 
knowledge of the law and of their rights; and not only that, but they 
showed a strict desire to live entirely within them. So I think I can 
say without exaggeration or fear of contradiction that all these 
immigrants absolutely respect the law, respect its spirit, and obey it. 

In the last twenty years the city of New York has made wonderful 
strides in commercial success and in advancement, not only from a 
money standpoint but from an artistic standpoint. Twenty years 
ago we had large tracts of land on the outskirts of the city that were 
wastes and deserts. They are now peopled by hundreds and thou¬ 
sands and hundreds of thousands of citizens—respectable, hard¬ 
working, obeying the law. Most of those are Russian immigrants 
and Roumanian immigrants, or their descendants. Who can say 
but that the great success of the city of New York is due to the 
much-despised Russian and Roumanian immigrant, or the immigrant 
who comes from Europe? Who can say that without them those 
desolate places would now be so thickly populated by men who have 
done so much to add to the wealth of the country ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. Generally speaking, the immigrants have con¬ 
tributed to the welfare and the upbuilding of the city; have they not ? 

Mr. Elkus. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That applies generally to them all ? 

Mr. Elkus. The Italians, the Germans, and so on. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Why, certainly. 

Mr. Elkus. Look at the great parts of the city that the Germans 
have built up, and that the Italians have built up. There is one 
section in the city of New York, on the upper east side, that is 
almost entirely populated by Italians. They, too, a, great majority 
of them, become law-abiding citizens of the community. 

I thank you, gentlemen, for listening to me so patiently at this 
late hour. 

Mr. Sabath. I desire to ask you one more question, if you will 
permit me. 

Mr. Elkus. Certainly. 

Mr. Sabath. I have observed (and, in fact, every one else has) that 
our trade and our exports have been increasing wonderfully, and that 
we are to-day doing business in every corner of the world. Do you 
not believe the fact that we have people in this country who are 
familiar with the various languages in itself aids us in reaching and 
doing business with the different nationalities and different sections 


348 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


of the world, through the fact that we can send our agents out to do 
business with these various countries who speak their own language ? 

Mr. Elkus. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Sabath. I have noticed an article in the report of Mr. Barrett, 
the director of the Bureau of South American Republics, in which he 
does not by any means discourage people from learning various 
languages; in fact, he encourages it. He believes that if the people 
were familiar with the languages that are spoken in the South Amer¬ 
ican Republics, it would aid us a great deal in enlarging our business 
with the South American Republics. Are you of the same opinion ? 

Mr. Elkus. I am. Undoubtedly it facilitates business—the famil¬ 
iarity, not only with languages, but with methods of procedure, which 
is obtained by intercourse with those countries. 

• 

STATEMENT OF MR. MAX J. KOHLER, OF NEW YORK CITY. 

Mr. Kohler. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we have heard some¬ 
thing said about the effects of the present administration of the law. 
As an attorney, and a member of the advisory board of the organiza¬ 
tion of which Judge Sanders is the president, and also, years ago, as 
assistant United States district attorney in New York, I have had 
occasion to give quite a little attention to that branch of the law. 

We notice, first of all, that according to the reports of the Commis¬ 
sioner-General of Immigration, 10,000 persons, roughly speaking, 
were excluded last year, about the same number the year before, 
and about 13,000 the year before that. In this connection I wish to 
refer to the group of cases that Mr. Elkus referred to—these habeas 
corpus cases of which we were going to make test cases, and would 
have done so but for the fact that the Government took our test 
cases away by admitting the men. We wanted a construction by 
the courts of the words “person likely to become a public charge. 7 ’ 
But the men were discharged between adjournments. Those cases 
show that the greatest amount of misunderstanding prevails in 
administrative circles to-day, and also on the part of the immigrants, 
or prospective immigrants abroad, as to what our law requires. 

I fully agree with Mr. Elkus that even now a great many persons 
are improperly excluded. I have here the reports of that society 
covering about 25 separate cases out of about 130 excluded cases. 
In each of the 25 cases, on a proper test of the law, if we could have 
gotten into court, the men would have been admitted, as having 
been excluded without rhyme or reason. But the law makes those 
decisions nonreviewable unless you can show an utter lack of due 
process of law. But assuming (as is undoubtedly true) that the large 
majority, say, 75 per cent, of those exclusions are justified, those per¬ 
sons ought to have an opportunity before they come over here to 
know what our law is. 

Congress has had that matter in mind several times. In the last 
immigration act, the act of 1907, in section 1, it was expressly pro¬ 
vided that some of this head-tax money should be utilized for the 
publication of digests of the decisions of the courts upon the immi¬ 
gration laws. We find the same provision in an earlier act—section 1 
of the act of 1903. Curiously enough, the digest has never been 
published, notwithstanding the mandate of Congress on each of those 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


349 


occasions. There is to-day no recent government compilation con¬ 
taining even the determinations of the courts or of the bureaus of the 
Government as to the meaning (very often more or less uncertain, as 
applied in practice) of such words as “ pauper, ” “ person likely to 
become a public charge,” and the prepaid-ticket provisions. There 
is no compilation giving those constructions later than one published 
in 1899 by the Treasury Department, which I sought for in vain in 
every public office in New York and in the libraries there. 

So much is that provision of law observed. It is most important 
that the meaning of these terms, as they have been construed by the 
courts and the department, should be made known abroad, so that an 
immigrant who is debarred by those provisions may know what our 
law is. It was certainly the purpose of Congress to have this or 
similar compilations published before the persons are allowed or 
induced to come over here. They do not want to waste all their 
substance and their time in coming here if they are likely to be 
debarred. They ought to have an opportunity of knowing what our 
law is; and the mandate of Congress ought to be observed in those 
respects. Unfortunately, the amendment that was made last year, 
I think, which provided that the head tax should be turned into 
Congress in general instead of being kept as a separate fund, may 
possiblv justify the present position that there is no necessary 
mandate. 

Mr. Bennet. That appropriation expressly provided that it was 
for the purpose of carrying out the act of 1907. 

Mr. Kohler. Oh, there is no question about that. It ought to be 
done. It is probably merely an oversight. Nobody has been inter¬ 
ested in the matter. Incidentally, if we had a compilation of that 
kind, it would be valuable also to the government officers, because 
it would show them what the courts and the highest authorities in 
the department have said as to the proper meaning of these more or 
less indefinite terms of the law. Ever since the famous Massachu¬ 
setts bill of rights it has been recognized that this is a government 
of law, and not of men; and where can we get proper judicial and 
other authoritative constructions of these indefinite terms aside 
from the courts and authoritative decisions based upon them ? So it 
is most important that we should have that done. 

While I have given you the number of exclusions here, it is inter¬ 
esting to note a matter that seems to have been quite overlooked. 
In the report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for 1907 
he calls attention to the remarkable fact (I have the exact reference 
to it here; it is on page 83) that 65,000 persons were refused tickets 
abroad because of the presence of the medical defects which the law 
specifies, as disclosed by the examination of the steamship companies 
there. That is five times as many as were excluded here. That 
refers only to medical defects. As to the rest of the possible reasons 
for exclusion—that they may be paupers, or that they may be 
persons likely to become a public charge, or that they may be subject 
to the so-called prepaid-ticket provisions of the law—they are 
never even disclosed to the poor immigrant, particularly the Russian 
Jew, who has to cross the frontier clandestinely to get here at all. 
He certainly is not going to get correct and good advice on that 
point from the runners of the steamship companies that may help 


350 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


him across the border. So this very important matter would 
simply tend in the direction of enforcing our own law; but it has 
simply been neglected and disregarded, as many other provisions 
for the benefit of the immigrant unfortunately have been. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Kohler, this number of 65,000 represents only 
intending immigrants who have paid for their steamship tickets in 
whole or in part; so there is no index at ail as to the much greater num¬ 
ber that have been refused permission to even buy tickets. These are 
the names that were scratched off of the manifests after the tickets 
were purchased. 

Mr. Kohler. I was not even aware of that. The report of the 
Industrial Commission of 1891 shows that in a prior year there were 
50,000 such cases, according to the Government’s calculations; but 
that only deals with those where the medical examination disclosed 
the defect. They ought, in common decency, to be advised of what 
our law is. Incidentally, as I have attempted to point out, it would 
also have the effect of enlightening a great many of our subordinate 
immigration inspectors as to their duties. 

Mr. Burnett. Let me ask you a question there, Mr. Kohler. Who 
furnished that information ? 

Mr. Kohler. The Government itself made an investigation of the 
matter. 

Mr. Bennet. Do you mean in the case of those 65,000 ? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes. 

Mr. Bennet. They took them from the manifest lists as they 
came from the countries where the law requires that there shall be 
thirty names on the list. There were thirty names, but a good 
many of the names were stricken off. They were refused after the 
purchase of the ticket because they were inadmissible. 

Mr. Burnett. If that is true, if the steamship companies went to 
the trouble to do that, why should they not furnish the information 
as to the other causes for which others were turned back? Why 
could they not have done that just as easily? 

Mr. Kohler. They are penalized as to one matter, viz, bringing 
diseased aliens over here. They are not penalized for the other, 
and have not any interest in the other. 

Mr. Burnett. As to those coming under contract and all those 
things ? 

Mr. Kohler. They are penalized if they knowingly bring people 
here under those conditions, yes; but not where they bring them 
and simply close their eyes to what an examination might disclose. 

Mr. Bennet. You have to prove that they knew it. 

Mr. Burnett. I should think, if you got it from the manifest, that 
that would disclose the whole number that were turned back. 

Mr. Bennet. No; it discloses only those that paid for their tickets, 
and thus got on the ship; but when they came to be examined at the 
ports of embarkation abroad it was found that the steamship com¬ 
pany would be fined if they were brought here, and they struck their 
names from the list and gave them their passage money back. There 
were 65,000 of them. 

Mr. Sabath. That worked a hardship on these people, did it not ? 

Mr. Bennet. Why, of course. Some of them came three or four 
hundred miles to get to the ship. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


351 


Mr. Sabatii. Should not the steamship companies inform these 
people beforehand, before they accept any money from them, before 
the people part with their homes and with all that they have? 

Mr. Bennet. You will find that in almost every foreign country 
they are now attempting to reach exactly that situation by statute. 
Under the Austrian statute, in the year 1907, I think there were 
something like 100 steamship agents sent to jail for violating the law 
of Austria in just those particulars. 

Mr. Kohler. But the indefinite provisions of our statute are such 
that we ought to have constructions by the courts, or other authori¬ 
tative officials, such as were published by the Treasury Department 
in 1899 in the document I referred to, but not since, notwithstanding 
the mandate of Congress. 

There is a great deal of mistake and blunder, working great injustice 
to the immigrant, in connection with the so-called prepaid-ticket 
provision. When that was reported to Congress some language was 
used which throws more light upon the matter than anything else 
I know of. I will read a few lines from that. It is from the report 
of the committee on the act of 1891, page 4: 

Those assisted by friends from this side of the water are the best class of immi¬ 
grants, for they have relatives or friends who will care for them in their untried 
surroundings. But the immigrant assisted from the other side usually has no friends 
here; and 2 any on the other side, their chief interest is in getting rid of what is 
likely soon to become a burden. 

The report goes on to say that the assisted-ticket immigrant should 
not be put in a prohibited class, but that our experience has been so 
unfortunate that it would seem prudent that he should be required to 
show affirmatively that he does not belong to one of the excluded 
classes. 

That was the intent of the law. It was very badly phrased, 
though; and this is the way it works in practice: 

First of all, the law says that persons shall come over here subject 
to the burden of affirmatively proving their right to come, wdien their 
ticket was purchased with the money of another. What does that 
mean? The more intelligent man, who has relatives and friends 
here, who sends his money here to them to buy the ticket, presents 
a ticket bought here. At once it is said, “Here is a ticket bought in 
this country; it has been paid for by the money of another,” though 
the immigrant himself may have sent it—which is, of course,, utter 
folly. Our laws throw some safeguards on the purchase of tickets, 
and still we have this ridiculous blunder. 

Next, the law did not contemplate that if a man borrows money 
on his own property, that is a ticket paid for with the money of 
another. 

But waiving that, and the uncertainty as to what that provision 
means, we come to the next clause, which has caused the utmost 
folly. The law simply says that the burden shall be upon such alien 
to show affirmatively that he is not within any of the prohibited 
classes. The law, however, does not give counsel to the poor alien 
coming over here ignorant of our language and of our laws. It does 
not tell him beforehand what our law is. And I actually heard it 
seriously stated by an inspector of immigration at Ellis Island that 
when he attempted to question an immigrant holding a prepaid 
ticket as to whether v he did or did not belong to any of these pro- 


352 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


hibited classes, he was reproved and told: “Why, the laws says he 
must affirmatively show that, and you have no business to assume 
the burden for him.” 

When we have such extraordinary conditions as that, we see how 
important it is to have a fair and proper administration of the law, 
which would work for the benefit of those desiring to exclude unde¬ 
sirables as well as avoid this gross injustice that is now being done 
to a great many deserving immigrants. 

I come next to the bonding provision, about which I want to say a 
few words. The bill which you have under consideration follows in 
part, at least, the recommendations of the Commissioner-General of 
Immigration, in which he says that in general immigrants should not 
be permitted to land on bond; and he points out two arguments 
which are deserving of serious consideration against the taking of 
bonds. He says that the pecuniary responsibility of the bondsman 
is often doubtful; and he says, in addition to that, that the people 
frequently disappear, change their names, and are lost track of. 

With regard to the first objection, it is the simplest thing in the 
world to require proper bonds. The constitutional right to bail 
may be thwarted in the same way, but I do not think a court will 
have much patience with that. It is perfectly capable of requiring 
only a surety company bond or a proper real estate bond with large 
equity. That is an abuse that can oe very easily disposed of in 
administration. 

Next, with regard to the claim that the people disappear. As an 
administrative matter, it is the simplest thing in the world to insert 
a clause in the bond that the person shall report periodically, every 
six months or a year, and forfeit the bond if he does not do it. 

Mr. Burnett. Report to whom ? 

Mr. Kohler. To the immigration officials who have charge of the 
bond, or anyone else who may be designated. 

Mr. Burnett. Suppose he is in Minnesota, a thousand miles away ? 

Mr. Kohler. The Government has officers at every place, every 
port and every city. It is easy to arrange that. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Kohler, that provision in the report is purely 
speculative. There never has been a case in the history of Europe 
where they have endeavored to enforce a bond where they have met 
with any of these difficulties that they anticipate may arise. 

Mr. Burnett. Have they ever enforced them? 

Mr. Bennet. Oh, yes; they have enforced them on a few occasions. 

Mr. Kohler. There is a very able opinion by Mr. Justice Brown 
in a case in the Federal Reporter; and there have been cases for 
nearly one hundred years in Massachusetts and in New York involv¬ 
ing those bonds, and they have been repeatedly enforced. When a 
doubtful case is presented—and there are many of them—that is 
the best possible guaranty against the person’s becoming a public 
charge. Some one else with adequate means is made surety for the 
man, to help him along. Why should not such a bond be taken 
literally and fairly, instead of speculating as to the man’s possibly 
becoming a public charge ? 

Mr. Burnett. What kind of bonds have you to suggest—the bond 
of a guaranty company or the bond of an individual surety ? 

Mr. Kohler. I think it would be proper to require a surety com¬ 
pany bond or an adequate bond from the owner of real estate having 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. '353 

an adequate equity in it—such, for instance, as is required in criminal 
cases under our New York penal code. 

Mr. Burnett. If you have an individual surety, it is often the 
case that the individual becomes bankrupt. If you require a guar¬ 
anty company bond, it would impose an almost impossible hardship 
on all the immigrants. 

Mr. Bennet. Oh, no; they are furnishing these bonds right along. 

Mr. Kohler. The surety companies are freely giving such bonds; 
and it is not once in a thousand or ten thousand cases that an indi¬ 
vidual surety becomes bankrupt. That is an ordinary business 
risk that everyone takes in other things. 

Mr. Sabath. Why should not the same kind of a bond be accepted 
by an immigration commissioner or the immigration authorities that 
is accepted by various state courts and other courts, viz, a real-estate 
bond ? 

Mr. Kohler. I think it ought to be. 

Mr. Sabath. Why should the authorities, as Mr. Burnett says, 
impose this additional burden upon these people who are not in a 
condition to pay the fee? I have been informed that some of the 
insurance companies and bonding companies charge as much as $40 
to sign such bonds. I should like to know whether that is really 
being enforced now or not. 

Mr. Bennet. There is no statute requiring surety company bonds. 

Mr. Sabath. Why should an order be given that only a surety 
company bond will be accepted ? 

Mr. Bennet. There is no such law. 

Mr. Sabath. I know there is no such law; but such an order has 
been given, as I understand. 

Mr. Burnett. By whom ? 

Mr. Sabath. By the commissioner, Mr. Williams, if I am not mis¬ 
taken. 

Mr. Kohler. It is practically impossible to get any bonds taken 
to-day except surety company bonds. 

Mr. Bennet. That is true. 

Mr. Kohler. But there is no law about it. 

Mr. Bennet. There is no law about it; and the only man who has 
any say about it is the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 

Mr. Kohler. And to-day, in the United States circuit court of 
appeals for the second circuit, in New York, a case is being reargued 
in which the claim is made (which I think is likely to be sustained) 
that the department to-day is unjustifiably and unreasonably and 
contrary to law refusing individual bonds almost invariably, misled 
by this specious reasoning to which I have referred. 

~ I just want to say one word more in connection with the illiteracy 
test that has been referred to. It has been commonly thought among 
almost all persons familiar with the Jewish immigrants, particularly, 
that there are practically no male Jews in this country who are illit¬ 
erate. The figures given in the report of the Commissioner-General 
of Immigration show that there is an appreciable percentage, as was 
shown to-day. This is due to the fact that in Russia, particularly, 
the Government studiously refuses to permit them to get the educa¬ 
tion they want. Our private agencies here do everything conceivable 
to help those immigrants along. They acquire a knowledge of Eng- 

49090—10-23 


354 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


lish or other languages—chiefly English—so rapidly that the impres¬ 
sion upon those that I have referred to is that there are none. I 
happen to be an honorary secretary of the Baron de Hirsch fund. The 
work that we subsidize in the Educational Alliance for immigrant 
classes has been referred to, but we now have similar classes in every 
large place in the country where there are Jewish inhabitants. We 
subsidize classes in Boston; we subsidize classes in Philadelphia; we 
subsidize them in Baltimore; we subsidize them in St. Louis, and in 
Pittsburg, and in Denver, and we are now doing so in Cleveland. 

The keenness of the zest of these immigrants, who have been 
deprived of the opportunity of learning to read and write in Russia, 
is indicated by the fact that we have special summer classes in New 
York for the immigrants who are unwilling to wait until the night 
schools open. In New York, with the enormous number of Jewish 
pupils, the night schools are open between October and April < nly. 
We had during the past year 25 classes in New York running during 
the hot intermediate summer months which were attended by 2,346 
Jewish immigrants who were not willing to wait until October to 
learn English. The Educational Alliance, which we subsidize, also 
has about 25 special immigrant classes having 1,076 students, who 
are prepared for the public schools, in order to get there quicker. 
The course is in no event longer than two years for any of them. A 
number of adults also attend special adult classes. 

So that almost everything conceivable is being done to Americanize 
the Russian and Roumanian Jewish immigrants and make them good 
citizens of the United States. We are acting along those lines by 
subsidizing different organizations throughout the United States, 
because we want to stimulate each locality to do the work instead of 
bearing the total expense ourselves. What we contribute is only a 
fraction of what is raised for that purpose in all the different places. 

I think, therefore, that the law proposing an illiteracy test would 
answer absolutely no useful purpose, certainly as far as the Jewish 
immigrant is concerned. As soon as he comes over here he almost 
invariably acquires a knowledge of reading and writing, which pos¬ 
sibly in some cases he has not got when he arrives here. 

Mr. Sabath. Does not that also apply more or less to all the other 
nationalities—to the Poles, and to the Slavonians, and to the Bo¬ 
hemians, and to the Croatians ? 

Mr. Kohler. My information is that it does; but my special 
knowledge is with respect to these Jewish organizations with which 
I am connected. The night-school classes in New York, of course, 
are enormous. Even now the College of the City of New York has 
opened a night college course, because of the large number thirsting 
for knowledge even in its higher forms. There is no danger at all 
that the alien immigrant coming over here will remain alien—alien 
to our thoughts and our citizenship. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Reference was made in the hearing to-day to 
the character of the examination of the immigrant on landing. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes. 

Mr. Goldfogle. The method was greatly criticised by some of 
the speakers here. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I understand that you have some comments to 
make concerning that. We shall be glad to hear you. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


355 


Mr. Kohler. I think that branch of the law requires important 
administrative corrections. The Ellis Island Commission, appointed 
by President Roosevelt, called attention to the fact that the words 
of the statute specifying that the examination before the board of 
special inquiry shall be separate and apart from the public do not 
and were not intended to exclude interested friends, such as repre¬ 
sentatives of the charitable organizations that are active at Ellis 
Island, or counsel, or other persons of that kind. They were simply 
intended to prevent a multitude interfering with the transaction of 
business. Notwithstanding that fact, counsel is refused before the 
board of special inquiry in its earlier stages; and the immigrant is 
left entirely without an opportunity even intelligently to understand 
this process, this trial, involving practically his liberty. And what 
is more, the statute provides that on the appeal, if he takes one, the 
evidence shall be limited to what was adduced before the board of 
special inquiry. So the immigrant, without counsel and without 
knowledge of our laws, even on the appeal, when he is given counsel, 
is ridiculed in that fashion, by the requirement that even the evi¬ 
dence on the appeal can not be different from that before the board 
of special inquiry. I want to say to the credit of Mr. Williams (some 
of whose other actions I have had occasion to criticise) that he has, 
in a measure, overcome this last hardship by granting new hearings 
before boards of special inquiry in cases that strike him as proper; 
so that evidence can now be supplied in cases that he approves of. 

Mr. Bennet. That was the intent of the law. Prior to the amend¬ 
ment information unfavorable to the immigrant was sometimes 
adduced before the commissioner; and it was thought to be fair that 
all the evidence should be before the board, and that where new evi¬ 
dence was attempted to be introduced the case should be sent back 
to the board, and the alien should have a chance to refute it. 

Mr. Kohler. Of course part of that proceeds on the theory that 
the law allows evidence against the immigrant to be taken outside of 
the board of special inquiry. The statute says that all the evidence 
must be reduced to writing, and it is that evidence that is to be taken 
up on appeal. But we know, as a matter of fact, that all sorts of 
extraordinary misstatements concerning the immigrant crop out in 
the letters of recommendation which the commissioners of the various 
ports make to the department, having no basis of fact in the evidence, 
and which, therefore, the immigrant can not meet, even when he has 
counsel. 

Mr. Bennet. There is a great deal done that is not in the law. 
There is no law whatever for the letter that the commissioner invari¬ 
ably sends accompanying the appeal. 

Mr. Kohler. The law says his views are to be given. I think that 
is in the statute itself. 

Mr. Bennet. No; I think you are in error about that. 

Mr. Kohler. It is in the regulation, anyhow, if not in the statute. 

Mr. Bennet. That may be. There is no law for the hearing which 
the commissioner gives after the board of inquiry has made its 
decision. 

Mr. Kohler. No; that is this new method of rehearing cases before 
the board of special inquiry. 

Mr. Bennet. The intent of the statute was that the board of 
special inquiry should pass on the matter, and that from its decision 


356 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


there should be an appeal to the Secretary through the Commissioner- 
General; that if there was to be any new evidence adduced the case 
should be sent back to the board of special inquiry, and that the 
evidence should be there adduced, and on the record in each instance 
the appeal should be taken. 

Mr. Kohler. In the group of cases that Mr. Elkus referred to, 
which culminated in four habeas corpus cases (though there were 20 
cases almost precisely alike that came up at the same time), a request 
was made for a personal hearing, because it was an important matter, 
before the Secretary of Commerce and Labor; or, in default thereof, 
for an opportunity to submit briefs. Before we knew of it, before any 
letter was sent in answer to our request granting either one or the 
other, all of these men were ordered deported, and 16 of them had, in 
fact, been deported before we could do anything. It is most impor¬ 
tant that the different charitable institutions represented on Ellis 
Island should have a right to have their representatives present freely 
and properly at the hearing before the board of special inquiry. We 
want law, and we want publicity, and we want justice, and there is no 
reason whatever why it should be denied. The matter was thoroughly 
thrashed out before the Ellis Island Commission that President Roose¬ 
velt appointed some years ago. It is a most important matter that 
there should be an opportunity to bring the administration of the law 
more in accord with the law of the land and have it a government of 
law and not a government of whim and caprice. 

I will say that the total number of these exclusions is only from 1 to 
2 per cent; but the injustice done to the individual excluded is irrep¬ 
arable, and no man can tell who will be visited by^ this miscarriage 
of justice. We find that about 25 per cent of the Jewish exclusions 
at Ellis Island;—and it is undoubtedly the same with regard to the 
non-Jewish ones—are unjust and not warranted by this digest of immi¬ 
gration-law decisions published by the Government in 1899, contain¬ 
ing the decisions of the courts as well as the rulings of the department. 

Mr. Bennet. Does not the law require that an excluded alien shall 
be notified, if it is an appealable case, of his right to appeal? 

Mr. Kohler. It does; yes. 

Mr. Sabath. But it is never done ? 

Mr. Kohler. In rare cases it is not done. I have heard of cases 
where the entry was made after the alien had departed from the trial 
room. It is generally done. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Do you mean to say, Mr. Kohler, that after the 
alien is deported they notify somebody that there is a right of appeal ? 

Mr. Kohler. No; what I refer to is this: After he has departed 
out of the court room, in order to comply with the regulation requiring 
notice to be given an entry is made on the minutes; and, naturally, 
one reading that assumes that the immigrant is still present in the 
court room. But in some cases, practically, he does not know of it. 
I do not think that happens very often. 

Mr. Bennet. When it does happen, it is an absolute violation of 
the statute ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. Of course. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bennet. There is no statute that I am aware of that prohibits 
him from having counsel, other than that vague language. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


357 


Mr. Kohler. No statute at all; and that is the report of the Ellis 
Island Commission. But I am not so much interested in counsel 
and the expense of having counsel. I do want, though, to have 
the representatives of the charitable organizations of the different 
nationalities handling immigration matters at Ellis Island officially 
recognized by the Government, so that they may have an oppor¬ 
tunity freely and fairly to be present, and let the light of day in upon 
the proceedings of the board of special inquiry in every case. That 
is our procedure as to all trials outside of immigration matters; and 
itjhas worked well wherever the Anglo-Saxon law prevails. 

Mr. Bennet. There are 48 agents of such societies at Ellis Island, 
I believe. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bennet. You mean to sav that they are excluded from the 
trial ? 

Mr. Kohler. They are excluded. Everyone is excluded, except 
as a stray curiosity-seeker may happen to interest the officials in his 
desire to go through Ellis Island, and may thus see for a moment 
what is happening. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. What as to the interpreters? 

Mr. Kohler. They have interpreters of various nationalities, and 
I understand that they try to do their duty honestly. They are 
present, depending upon the language the witness speaks. 

Mr. Burnett. Are there a great many cases that go to the board 
of review ? 

Mr. Kohler. The board of special inquiry? 

Mr. Burnett.' Yes. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes; there are, and the number has been increasing 
enormously since Mr. Williams has been in office. 

Mr. Burnett. Would it not take an interminable length of time 
if counsel were allowed to appear ? Is not that the reason, on ac¬ 
count of the fact that they have not the time to give hearings in all 
these cases? 

Mr. Kohler. The counsel of these representatives are very eager 
to be present. The fact is that it is not deemed expedient, as I 
understand it, to allow anyone else in. But it is a clear miscon¬ 
ception of the law, which President Roosevelt’s Ellis Island Com¬ 
mission called attention to in their printed report; but the matter 
has not yet been remedied. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Will you give us one case in point 
where you know an injustice to have been done by reason or the 
failure of the immigrant to have counsel and to be properly advised ? 

Mr. Kohler. I have here 25 cases. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Just give me one case in point—a 
sample case. 

Mr. Kohler. Here is a case which I have picked out—the case of 
Jacob Granat, 19 years of age, who came over on the steamer Bluecher. 
He was a teacher; single; his country is Galicia. He was destined to 
an uncle, H. Granat, living at 199 East Seventh street, New York 
City. He had $32 in cash. His passage was paid by himself. Why 
that man should have been excluded, when this is a full and fair 
transcript of the case, I can not tell. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What was the ground assigned for his exclusion? 

Mr. Kohler. He was excluded as likely to become a public charge. 


358 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Goldfogle. How was it possible that he would become a 
public charge? 

Mr. Kohler. I have stated that in every one of these 25 cases 
that I have picked out in the last two months, I have not any doubt 
that if we could have gotten them into court the court would have 
admitted the applicant. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. But the department surely must 
have assigned some reason for excluding him. 

Mr. Kohler. The ground assigned was that he was likely to become 
a public charge. 

Mr. Burnett. Was it not perhaps because of physical defects? 

Mr. Kohler. No; there were no physical defects in his case. . In 
every case where there is a physical defect our records show just 
what it is. 

Mr. Sabath. I can give you the reason that was given to me, viz, 
that if they deport them it will discourage immigration. That was 
the reason given me about these 20 Bulgarians. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I can not conceive of that reason. 

Mr. Burnett. Who gave it to you ? 

Mr. Sabath. That was the reason that was given to me by an 
official. They had no other reason. 

Mr. Bennet. Suppose you give us another case. 

Mr. Kohler. Certainly. Here is the case of Gulda Oliver. The 
exclusion was on the 18th day of February of this year. I ought to 
have stated that the other case was on the 20th of January, 1910. 
That is probably the date of application for admission. This Gulda 
Oliver, a woman 27 years of age, came over on the steamer Marne. 
She was a domestic. She was single. She came from Galicia. She 
was destined to a cousin, Morris Halpern, 155 Kivington street. She 
had $24. Her passage was paid by herself. She was formerly in 
the United States for two years. And we need domestics. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. What was her age ? 

Mr. Kohler. Twenty-seven. 

Mr. Burnett. What ground was assigned ? 

Mr. Kohler. Likelihood to become a public charge. 

Mr. Bennet. Is it not stated in connection with those cases that 
the reason they are likely to become a public charge is that they are 
going to a congested city, to wit, New York City? 

Mr. Kohler,. I do not think so. 

Mr. Bennet. I have seen cases of that kind. 

Mr. Kohler. It does happen on occasion; but there is no evidence 
as to that. It is utterly illegal. The law requires the board to decide 
upon the cases upon the evidence adduced before it. 

Mr. Bennet. Yes. 

Mr. Kohler. And in connection with the question of domestics I 
would recommend an article in this month’s number of “ McClure’s,’ 7 
which shows how very much we need domestics. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. There is no doubt about that, Mr. 
Kohler, but did you have a chance to look at that testimony at all ? 

Mr. Kohler. I have not in those particular cases. I have com¬ 
pared these records with theirs. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I agree with you that if the records 
given by you are complete there would appear to have been no reason 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 359 

for sending either of those persons back. Yet there must have been 
something, some other reason given, than that which you assign. 

Mr. Kohler. I have seen scores of records—we had a number of 
them in these habeas corpus proceedings—that were just about the 
same. 

Mr. Burnett. Why was not habeas corpus obtained there ? 

Mr. Kohler. Because Congress provided in 1891 that the decision 
shall be final, and reviewable only on appeal to the Secretary of Com¬ 
merce and Labor. 

Mr. Burnett. But you got some others off on habeas corpus. 

Mr. Kohler. In those cases we applied to the court on the theory 
that because they had denied us any opportunity to argue the appeal, 
either personally or by brief, there was a denial even of the semblance 
of law. For that reason we got into court, and if the court took 
jurisdiction at all it would have to decide the whole matter, including 
the merits. But when we came near getting a judicial construction 
of those words in these cases, between adjournments all four of our 
men were admitted. Of course we could not protest against that, 
and our test cases disappeared. 

Mr. Bennet. Would you mind if we sent to the department in 
these cases to get the records to see what are the exact facts ? 

Mr. Kohler. I shall be very glad to have you do so. 

Mr. Bennet. Suppose you take ten of them. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. I would suggest that you pick out 
ten cases—the ten that you regard as the most flagrant—so that we 
may inquire into the facts. 

Mr. Kohler. And I would also like to suggest that the letter of 
recommendation of the commissioner at New York should accompany 

them, in order to intelligently present the case. 

Mr. Bennet. There would be no letter of recommendation if they 
were not appealed. 

Mr. Kohler. They were appealed. 

Mr. Bennet. Were all of them appealed ? Pick out appealed cases, 

then. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes; in this first case there was an appeal taken. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Under what auspices was the appeal 
taken ? 

Mr. Kohler. The Hebrew Shelter and Aid Society, which Mr. Wil¬ 
liams has commended as one of the two very best, if not the best, of 
these organizations on Ellis Island. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Then the immigrant did have the 
benefit of counsel to that extent ? s 'H| 

Mr. Kohler. After the board of special inquiry had decided the 
case and when he took an appeal. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. The appeal was taken under the 
auspices of the society, and by its advice ? 

Mr. Kohler. By its advice. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And with its assistance? 

Mr. Kohler. Exactly. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. And as the result of that appeal, the 
decision still was that he should be deported because he was likely to 
become a public charge ? 

Mr. Kohler. That is right. 

Mr. Burnett. In other words, the decision of the board of inquiry 
was sutained by the Secretary ? 


360 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Kohler. In the group of 20 cases that Mr. McHarg, the 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Labor, handled, as I have 
stated, our request for a hearing, either verbally or by brief, was 
entirely ignored, and deportation was ordered without even giving us 
a chance to be heard. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Then the society, as the friend of the 
immigrant thus rejected, was not given an opportunity to ascertain 
any further facts as to the cause of deportation except what you have 
stated ? 

Mr. Kohler. When an appeal is taken the testimony is subject 
to inspection by counsel, but the private recommendations of the 
commissioner are not; and those are sometimes very suggestive, 
as we have found out. 

Mr. Burnett. Were you heard before the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor ? 

Mr. Kohler. In this first case, at least, the record was transmitted 
to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and a formal order dis¬ 
missing the appeal and ordering deportation was made. 

Mr. Burnett. Was a brief filed by you or anyone else before the 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor ? 

Mr. Kohler. A record and a brief were submitted; yes. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Was that based on the testimony 
taken by the board of inquiry ? 

Mr. Kohler. I understand that the Secretary considered the 
words “a person likely to become a public charge'’ to cover the case 
of a person who is poor, or likely to be poor, or whom they guess may 
possibly become poor, and that that accounts for the deportation. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Then the testimony was available 
to counsel for the society ? 

Mr. Kohler. When the appeal was taken, after the board of special 
inquiry had decided the case. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Then how could you know whether 
there was anything further in the testimony than what you have just 
indicated to justify a ruling of deportation? 

Mr. Kohler. I know clearly from the report that there was nothing 
further, because I have found all of these reports to be faithfully and 
fully made out, the very purpose being to present all the facts. I 
have a group here of about 75 more cases where I think the deporta¬ 
tion was probably justified on the legal theories that obtain. I am 
only picking out, as I said, perhaps 25 per cent of these. 

Mr. Burnett. Were you the attorney for the appellant? 

Mr. Kohler. No; I simply acted in an advisory capacity. 

Mr. Burnett. You did not file a brief, then ? 

Mr. Kohler. No; but our representative at Ellis Island did. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HARRY CUTLER, OF PROVIDENCE, R. I. 

Mr. Cutler. Mr. Chairman, I came all the way from Providence 
hoping to present some evidence before the committee. I see that 
the hour is late, and that it is impossible to light up the room, and that 
probably a few of the members of the committee (perhaps all of them) 
have other engagements, so that for various reasons the hearing must 
of necessity cease to-day. I should be very glad, however, if I could 
be given an opportunity to be heard to-morrow. You have already 
promised to hear one gentleman then. 1 should be glad to stay 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 361 

over and take advantage of that opportunity to speak before the 
committee. 

Mr. Bennet. This part of the hearings is under the charge of Judge 
Goldfogle. I have no doubt he will be very glad to do that. 

Mr. Cutler. I should like to know if that will be agreeable. 

Mr. Goldfogle. To-morrow I shall not be here. I expect to leave 
to-night. 

Mr. Cutler. I have just been reminded by Doctor Friedman that, 
aside from other qualifications, I am a member of the executive com¬ 
mittee of the American-Jewish committee and of this special com¬ 
mittee that was requested to come here to-day. 

Mr. Sabath. Why can not Mr. Cutler be heard to-morrow 1 ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. I can not be here to-morrow. 

Mr. Cutler. I shall not occupy more than ten minutes now, if it 
is your desire that I shall go on now. 

Mr. Goldfogle. We will hear you on Monday. 

Mr. Cutler. On Monday I can not be here. I should return 
to-day. I had an appointment with Senator Aldrich which I have 
missed, and there are some matters that make it necessary for me 
to go back. In fact, I was obliged to leave a very busy session of the 
legislature of Rhode Island, at which there was a public hearing in 
which I am very much interested. 

Mr. Goldfogle. If you have remarks prepared, in view of the 
situation as you have already stated it, you may submit those re¬ 
marks, and the committee will pass on them and probably will per¬ 
mit them to be placed in the hearings. 

Mr. Cutler. I have not any remarks prepared. I have some 
figures which I should like to submit. 

Mr. Goldfogee. Just submit the figures to me, and I will present 
them to the committee. 

• Mr. Cutler. I would not take more than ten minutes. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Have you figures besides those presented by the 
gentlemen who represent the same organization that you represent? 

Mr. Cutler. Yes, sir; they are absolutely different. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Do you mean that they differ from those figures? 

Mr. Cutler. No; I do not. I mean they are with regard to data 
that has not yet been submitted. 

Mr. Goldfogle. If you will send the data it will be presented to 
the committee; no doubt the committee, upon my request, will 
allow it to be printed. 

Mr. Cutler. There is no way that I can be heard to-morrow, then ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. Not very well. There is work before the com¬ 
mittee to-morrow. I shall not be able to attend the session. I 
want to attend these meetings of the committee. I have attended 
pretty much every one of them so far, and I desire to attend all to 
the close. 

Mr. Cutler. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may detain you but a second, 
I want to say that it is very, very unfortunate, to say the least, that 
it is impossible for me to have a few minutes’ talk to-day. I repre¬ 
sent a constituency that perhaps ought to be heard from through 
their representative. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Why do you not proceed now? 

Mr. Cutler. If you are willing, I will. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Notwithstanding the extreme lateness of the 
hour, you may proceed for five minutes. 


362 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Cutler. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, at the outset I 
want to express my personal thanks and my deep gratitude because, 
under all the conditions that have already been stated, you have 
allowed me a few moments at this time. 

As I said at the beginning, I represent a part of the committee of 
the American Jewish committee. I am also president of the Inde¬ 
pendent Order of B’nai Brith, District No. 1, which includes New 
York and Brooklyn, the New England States, and eastern Canada. 
The committee desired that I present myself here to-day in the light 
of perhaps what might be termed a horrible example, or, as one of 
the gentlemen kindly stated, a good exhibit of what an immigrant 
can evolve into if given an opportunity. 

I also am of Russian birth, and came here after the massacres of 
1882 , having experienced in the city of my birth the very massacres 
that have been spoken of. 

Mr. Bennet. Which was what city ? 

Mr. Cutler. Elizabethgrad. It is not necessary for me to go in 
detail into the horrors of those days. You gentlemen are acquainted 
perhaps as well as anyone can be with what those persecutions and 
massacres (or “pogroms,” as they are called), mean. It is only fair 
to say that through the friendship of our Gentile neighbors, as we 
term them there, or “Goim” (Christians), our house was saved by 
reason of the fact that in every one of the windows and doors there 
was suspended or exhibited either a Madonna, or a crucifix, or some¬ 
thing symbolic of the Greek Catholic Church in order to mislead the 
rabble. From the night that my father went to defend his store I 
have never seen him. That led, of course, to the emigration to this 
country of my mother, my sister, and myself. 

I do not say these things, gentlemen, for self-exploitation or ego¬ 
tism, but in order to convey a point which the committee asked me 
to make. 

Coming to this country during the days of Castle Garden (not Ellis 
Island), we also experienced the congested condition of those days 
through being obliged to be removed to some island, which to-day I 
term Blackwell’s Island, or some near-by island. That was necessary 
because of the fact that there was not room enough in the city of 
New York or in Castle Garden to take care of the congested immi¬ 
gration before it was transmitted to other portions of the country. . 

It is unnecessary for me to go through my experience in this 
country. It was the experience of thousands of other immigrants. 
There was no opportunity for schooling, such as we had hoped I 
would have. I was only able to secure such schooling as I could 
pick up in a general way. 

Mr. Burnett. You could read when you came? 

Mr. Cutler. I could read Yiddish and Russian, and translate 
Hebrew. 

Mr. Bennet. And how old were you ? 

Mr. Cutler. I was then 9 years of age. The Hebrew, of course, 
is distinctly different from the Yiddish. I think the committee under¬ 
stands that. The Yiddish which has been so much referred to to-day 
is not a language; it is a jargon. It is a great borrower from other 
languages. The Yiddish in Germany borrows from the German 
language; the Yiddish in Russia borrows from the Russian language; 
and the Yiddish in America borrows from the English language. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


363 


That is because it is not, properly speaking, a language at all; it is 
a jargon; it has no grammar, but depends on these interpolations to 
carry out a sentence. 

Mr. Burnett. Could most of your co-religionists of the same age 
read ? 

Mr. Cutler. Most of them could—that is, most of those that came 
with us. 

Mr. Burnett. I mean those in the locality from which you came. 

Mr. Cutler. No; I would not say they could all read Yiddish. 
Most of them, or a majority of them, probably could read Hebrew, 
because Hebrew is a language of the Bible, and that is first taught. 

Mr. Bennet. But I infer, from the fact that your father had a 
store, that you beloilged to the better-to-do classes ? 

Mr. Cutler. If I may be permitted to say so modestly, my folks 
trace their lineage back to Catherine the First and Peter the Great. 
My father was in business, in partnership with a Gentile. They had 
three stores—one, if I recall correctly, in St. Petersburg, another in 
Warsaw, and another in Elizabethgrad. 

The evolution of the individual you see before you has been such 
that I have taken advantage of the opportunities this grand Govern¬ 
ment has extended to me and to everj r immigrant that has come here. 
And I feel, gentlemen, that the same opportunities that I have had 
should be presented to those who are now knocking at the door 
and seeking this harbor of refuge. I characterize myself, not, as 
these gentlemen have said, as a “good exhibit,” but I characterize 
myself as an American citizen of Russian nativity and Jewish faith. 
Through fortuitous circumstances I now fill a certain position in the 
community in which I reside. Politically, I am a member of the 
Rhode Island legislature. The military position I hold is that of 
captain of my company in the First Light Infantry Regiment. I 
also have the distinction, I believe, of being the only man of my 
faith who is a codirector in the educational department of the Y. M. 
C. A. So I have tried to take part in both Jewish and Gentile en¬ 
deavors, and I can attest the correctness of almost everything these 
gentlemen have said with regard to the carrying out of our efforts 
to inculcate, along settlement and educational and communal lines, 
the development of the new immigrant. 

But the figures I want to submit to you furnish a better and more 
concrete example than I could ever offer as a reason why the Hayes 
bill, or any similar bill, should not be enacted into law, and why im¬ 
migration should be allowed to proceed. This country is not in any 
sense thickly populated. As showing that, I want to submit to you 
certain figures compiled by the commissioner of industrial statistics, 
from which yesterday I hurriedly collated certain references; and I 
shall be glad "to leave you his report, which we think is admirable. 

Mr. Burnett. You refer to the commissioner of industrial sta¬ 
tistics of your State? 

Mr. Cutler. Of our State. In considering these figures as ap¬ 
plicable to Rhode Island, gentlemen, we must take into consideration 
the fact that Rhode Island, the greatest State in the Union, although 
the smallest in territory (gentlemen from other States will pardon 
me), and a State that ought to be represented on this committee, I 
think—Rhode Island, small in territory but great in its varied in¬ 
dustries, which are of so vast a character, is considered in a sense to 


364 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


be a densely populated State. I think most of you gentlemen will 
agree that that is the general acceptation. I have taken from a 
classification of twenty-four distinct industries in Rhode Island (be¬ 
cause I did not have the time to collate more) the statistics relating 
to about eleven important wage-earning industries. I have done this 
to show you what the immigrants in that State have done for the 
development of the State—immigrants who, as has been said, came 
over in the steerage from the time of the Mayflower to that of the 
Mauretania. 

Mr. Bennet. If you will leave the paper, you can put it in without 
reading it. 

Mr. Cutler. It - will only take me a moment, Mr. Chairman, and 
then I will conclude: 4 

Agricultural pursuits: American-born, 58.66 per cent; foreign-born, 41.34 per cent. 

Workers on apparel: American-born, 24.96 per cent; foreign-born, 75.04 per cent. 

Building trades: American-born, 36.32 per cent; foreign-born, 63.68 per cent. 

Government employees— 

And this is something to be remembered, gentlemen— 

American-born, 46.82 per cent; foreign-born, 53.18 per cent. 

Mr. Burnett. Are the foreign-born persons both of whose parents 
were born abroad ? 

Mr. Cutler. No; as I understand it, that includes two genera¬ 
tions. Some of them may have come here themselves or their par¬ 
ents have come here. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. You have a very large French-Ca- 
nadian population there, too, have you not? 

Mr. Cutler. Not a very large French-Canadian population. We 
have a considerable number of French-Canadians. Massachusetts, 
the adjacent State, has a large French-Canadian population around 
Lowell and Fall River and those places. So that we have 53.18 per 
cent of foreign-born government employees, as against 46.82 percent 
American-born. 

Jewelry, gold and silver: American-born, 35.43 per cent; foreign-born, 64.57 per 
cent. 

Manufacturers of baser metals:. American-born, 26.96 per cent; foreign-born, 73.04 
per cent. 

Manufacturers of miscellaneous articles: American-born, 39.56 per cent; foreign- 
born, 60.44 per cent. 

Manufacturers of textiles: American-born, 15.84 per cent; foreign-born, 84.16 per 
cent. 

Retail merchants, dealers, etc.: American-born, 44.71 per cent; foreign-born, 55.29 
per cent. 

And if the chairman of the committee will permit me, I should like 
to complete this list of percentages and mail it to you immediately 
upon my return to Providence. 

Mr. Bennet. Surely. 

Mr. Cutler. Now, gentlemen, so much has been said with regard 
to the economic side of this matter, and so much has been said with 
regard to the sympathetic and the humanitarian side of it, that it is 
utterly unnecessary for me to touch upon those things. But in the 
interest of the development of this country, which needs the immi¬ 
grant, the men I represent and the men who have sent me here pro¬ 
test against any obnoxious measures of this kind as being utterly bad. 

I thank you. 

(The committee thereupon adjourned.) 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


365 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Saturday, March 12, 1910. 

The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m., Hon. William S. Bennet, 
presiding. Others present were Representatives Moore, of Texas, 
Burnett, Kustermann, Sabath, and Hayes. 

Mr. Bennet. We will hear Mr. Kelilier, who has been waiting on 
the committee two or three days. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. KELIHER, A REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr. Keliher. In my opinion there is no general demand in the 
country for legislation embodying the propositions contained in the 
bills now under consideration, which provide an increased head tax 
educational test, and for money in the pocket. The demand is an 
artificial one. It has been largely created by a propaganda which 
I believe has been in existence since the birth of the Republic. From 
it has perennially come a demand to Congress for an increase in the 
barriers to immigration, first in one form, then in another. It has 
been directed against the Irish, German, and Scandinavian, and now 
aims to strike the Italian and Jew. 

It would seem that, in view of the consideration given the law 
recommended a few years ago by this committee and passed by 
Congress, it would be good judgment to allow that law at least to 
remain in its original form until a much fairer test of its efficacy 
be had before giving heed to the present objections of the 
restrictionists. 

This Hayes bill, to my mind, while introduced apparently with 
the object of increasing restriction, is really the bill of a man who 
believes and desires exclusion absolutely. I have more respect for 
the bold exclusionist, who declares that the time has come when 
we have got to erect barriers that will keep out almost all foreigners, 
than I have for the man who attempts to attain, by indirection, 
that same exclusion. There are marching to-day, throughout the 
country, under the banner of restriction, a great number of people 
who believe absolutely in exclusion. It is true that there is a goodly 
number of people in this country to-day who are apprehensive, 
along economic lines, that unless something is done in the way of 
curbing immigration grave danger will ensue economically to the 
country, but in the main this opposition has been aroused, organized, 
and is exploited by this particular propaganda which I have 
mentioned. 

Mr. Burnett. To what propaganda do you refer? 

Mr. Keliher. I can not give you its exact title. 

Mr. Burnett. You mean the Junior Order of United Mechanics? 

Mr. Keliher. Yes; the Junior Order of United American Mechan¬ 
ics, I think. 

Mr. Burnett. You are aware of the fact that farmers’ unions, 
composed of 3,000,000 farmers, have asked for it and have also 
favored it by their resolutions ? 


366 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Keliher. I am also aware of the fact that until this order got 
to propagating among the farmers of the country that we heard very 
little from the farmers. I also recall reading memorials and petitions 
to Congress in which the farmers declare that these immigrants stay 
in the big cities, huddle together there, and become a menace to the 
country. Surely if that is true the farmers do not come much in 
contact with the immigrants, have little opportunity to study them, 
and then there can be no great danger to the farmers from city aliens. 

Mr. Burnett. You think the American Federation of Labor was 
influenced by that same spirit ? 

Mr. Keliher. I think the American Federation of Labor is not 
wholly influenced by the same spirit. 

Mr. Burnett. You are aware of the fact that they have passed res¬ 
olutions at several annual meetings ? 

Mr. Keliher. I am perfectly well aware of that, but I know that 
the rank and file of the labor unions of the country are opposed to 
this sort of legislation. 

Mr. Burnett. How could they have resolutions adopted, then, as 
they have had them adopted ? 

Mr. Keliher. Your experience and mine teaches us that in great 
organizations and in great conventions many resolutions are passed 
that have not been given the consideration they deserve and with the 
purport of which a great number of the members of the convention 
are not familiar. 

Mr. Bennet. How could they go on doing this for three or four 
successive annual meetings, as they have, if they did not know what 
the membership wanted ? 

Mr. Keliher. I am still of this opinion, that the question of 
closing the doors to desirable immigration, which will unquestionably 
follow to a large extent if you adopt this educational test, the in¬ 
creased head tax, and the money in pocket provision, has not been 
given thorough and serious consideration by those bodies. 

Mr. Burnett. Don’t you think the educational test has? 

Mr. Keliher. Not the consideration it is entitled to. 

Mr. Moore. We had one of their representatives here a few days 
ago, Mr. Roe, and he presented some resolutions and made quite a 
lengthy statement. 

Mr. Burnett. Time and time again we have had such resolutions 
presented. 

Mr. Kustermann. The great bulk of workingmen do not agree 
with him, I am thoroughly convinced. 

Mr. Keliher. Now, in very hastily going over the provisions of 
the pending Hayes bill, I find that which stands out conspicuously 
is the increased head tax, and, as I said before, the educational test. 
Now, I do not believe any good American citizen thinks that a man 
who has money in his pocket is a better man than one who has not, 
particularly if the man judged comes from a section of the world 
where the opportunity to honestly earn money is limited, very lim¬ 
ited, and I think the theory that a man with money is a better man 
than one without is repugnant to the American idea and spirit. Now, 
I can not see, for myself, what improvement an alien will be in this 
country who has a knowledge of Yiddish, or a foreign language, over 
one who has not such a knowledge. I would much rather see immi¬ 
grants come into our country who could not read and write Yiddish, 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


367 


because their offspring would be more inclined and more apt to take 
up English and learn English than if the parents had a knowledge 
of Yiddish and taught the offspring that tongue. 

Mr. Burnett. You think it better to have illiterates than those 
who have education? 

Mr. Keliher. I think the crux of this whole question at present 
is its economic feature and no other. It has been said so frequently, 
that it is almost plagiarism to quote it, that we have a superabundance 
of brain and a dearth of brawn in this country, and I hope this com¬ 
mittee will give due consideration to the economic phase of this 
proposition. I do not understand the conditions in the South and 
you do not our conditions in the North. I believe if this bill were to 
pass, and if we were to exclude healthy immigrants that were not 
capable of reading the language of their mother countries there would 
be such a dearth of that class of labor that we in the North need that 
it would practically paralyze many of the great projects now in 
process of construction in our country. You can not get the son of 
the first generation of the Italian to go down into our tunnels, where 
the labor is extremely arduous and hazardous. Why, in Boston we 
have just completed building a tunnel under the bed of our harbor, 
where the work was very hazardous as well as trying upon the labor¬ 
ers. You can not get American labor; you can not get the German, 
the Irishman, or the American to do that work, and I will make this 
prediction: If this bill were to become law it would not be upon the 
statute books two years before there would be a demand for legisla¬ 
tion to repeal it or resolutions calling for a suspension of it in order 
to meet paralyzed conditions of business in our industrial centers, 
as a result of a shortage of labor that present-day immigration is 
furnishing in response to a constant demand. 

Mr. Burnett. If they would pay them enough they could get all 
the labor needed ? 

Mr. Keliher. You could not get an Irishman to go down into those 
tunnels and do the work these willing Italians do for $10 a day. 

Mr. Burnett. Didn’t they do it before these men got to coming 
here ? 

Mr. Keliher. Yes, sir; when the conditions of the country were 
different, and in twenty-five years from now I do not know where you 
are going to recruit your rough, crude, labor if the present supply is 
exhausted, because you are not going to get the second generation of 
immigrants to engage in it. 

Returning to what has been said about the apprehension that our 
country will go to the bow-wows unless great barriers, insurmount¬ 
able barriers, are created to keep out immigration, Mr. Hayes, at a 
recent meeting, said he believed the scum of Europe was being 
diverted in this direction. This seems to be an arraignment of the 
administration of existing laws, because we have laws upon our 
statute books which provide the most rigid examination of immi¬ 
grants, and if that element to which Mr. Hayes refers is getting in 
it must be due to the lax enforcement of existing laws; and if it were 
true that laws now on the statute books were not being enforced is 
there any reason to believe that if you put additional laws on they 
would be enforced ? 

Mr. Bennet. A gentleman who appeared before our committee yes¬ 
terday said the law was being overenforced. 


368 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Keliher. From my experience in Boston, representing in part 
the second largest port of entry, representing, also, a constituency that 
is quite cosmopolitan, which brings me frequently in contact with the 
immigration officials, I unhesitatingly state that the law there is rig¬ 
idly enforced, and I know where I have made appeals to and from 
decisions of these officials in many cases I have been rarely successful. 
I have carried innumerable cases to Washington and frequently have 
had the decision of the local immigration commissioner set aside by 
the authorities down here. 

Mr. Bennet. And you have had the same local commissioner under 
Secretaries Metcalf, Straus, and- 

Mr. Keliher. Colonel Billings has been immigration commissioner 
there since President McKinley’s time; yes. He was there under the 
secretaries you mention. 

Mr. Bennet. And the enforcement of the law has been uniform 
during all of that time ? 

Mr. Keliher. Absolutely. Now, we have always heard a great 
deal about what is going to happen if these immigrants continue to come 
in. I am too practical, and I know the committee is too, to spend 
much time in showing that apprehension similar to that expressed 
to-day was voiced one hundred years ago, and has been throughout 
the life of the Republic. One hundred and odd years ago a very distin¬ 
guished citizen and statesman of my State, a man of renown for wis¬ 
dom in his time, Harrison Gray Otis, said, in debating a bill which 
aimed to increase the cost of naturalization to an alien to a price that 
would practically render citizenship impossible of attainment, “That 
while it was good policy to have admitted all immigrants when the 
country was new, it was no longer a new country and a bar should be 
placed against the admittance of these restless people who can not be 
happy and tranquil at home.” The country was quite a new country 
when Mr. Otis spoke, because he spoke in 1797. Later on he said: 
“We do not want a vast horde of wild Irishmen let loose upon us.” 

This declaration was made upon the floor of Congress in 1797. 
How much did the fear expressed by Otis then differ from what we 
hear to-day from these restrictionists ? I know you were deluged, 
submerged with figures and statistics yesterday, and so I will not 
encumber the record any more to show how untenable is the position 
of those who argue along these lines. You know about what the popu¬ 
lation was at that time; suffice to state that our country contained 
827,844 square miles and a population which averaged less than 5 
people to a square mile. 

Mr. Burnett. Is that a copy of the Congressional Record in 1797 
from which you are reading ? 

Mr. Keliher. I am quoting from a speech delivered , by me some 
four years ago. I think I took this data from one of the histories of 
the United States. I was at that time speaking upon the opposition 
to immigration at that time, 1797. 

Mr. Sabath. So this is not a new question ? 

Mr. Keliher. No; this is a perennial question. John Randolph, 
in a speech delivered in Congress when we had but 11,000 immigrants 
in a year, declared: “You must teach the people of Europe if they do 
come here, all they must hope to receive is protection. But they 
must have no share in the Government.” So these apprehensions as 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


369 


to what is going to happen to our country are not new. Note the 
apprehension of the mayor of New York over seventy years ago: 

Aaron Clark, mayor of New York City in 1837 when the number of immigrants 
arriving yearly were but 57,936, in a communication to the city council of that city, 
dated June 5, painted the following gloomy picture of the menacing effect immigration 
was having upon the country in general and the metropolis in particular: 

“Our streets are filled with wandering crowds of these passengers clustering in our 
city, unacquainted with our climate, without employment, without friends, not 
speaking our language, and without any dependence for food, or raiment, or fireside, 
certain of nothing but hardship and a grave; and to be viewed, of course, with no very 
ardent sympathy by those native citizens whose immediate ancestors were the saviors 
of the country in its greatest peril. Besides, many of them scorn to hold opinions in 
harmony with the true spirit of our Government. They drive our native workmen into 
exile.” 

Henry Clay, illustrious as a statesman and preeminent among the 
thinkers of his time, displayed inexplicably weak judgment in treating 
this question. In 1830 he declared in the Senate “that it had not 
become a permanent policy of the country to go on inviting all the 
hordes of Europe to come over and partake of this bounty (public 
lands) derived from our ancestors, and which we should preserve for 
our posterity.” The hordes Clay had in mind were the Germans, 
Irish, and Scandinavians. Do you hear much harder terms applied 
to the Italian and Jew immigrant to-day? 

There are a number of cases that I might quote to show that in 
those early days there was much the same kind of alarm in this 
connection. However, I am satisfied that if you were to poll intelli 
gently the sentiment of the business world throughout the United 
States to-day an overwhelming verdict against this proposition would 
be obtained. I have talked with men in the business world in my 
section, men who are the heads of large commercial enterprises, men 
who are at the head of mills, and the universal opinion has been that 
legislation like this would be a mistake. They all believe that the 
moral and physical qualification of the incoming man be judged by a 
very high standard, but so far as closing the doors to honest immi¬ 
grants who are ready to work they are universally, as I have said, 
opposed to it. 

In your particular country, Mr. Burnett, there is a strong local 
opposition to the Italian coming into it, and I think that is based 
upon the theory that the Italian would be a menace to that section. 
I think the satisfaction expressed for the negro help in the South is 
due to the fact that the negro in the main is devoid of ambition, 
while the Italian is chock full of it; I think you feel down there that 
if the Italian got into the cotton fields in a short while he would 
become the possessor of cotton seed, would grow cotton, and become 
a competitor, while the negro shows no such aptitude. 

Mr. Burnett. We have had quite a number of your south Italians, 
but they do not stay in the cotton fields. 

Mr. Bennet. Here is what the immigration movement is doing. 
I do not speak so much of Alabama; but you take Mr. Burnett’s par¬ 
ticular district; it is a good deal like a great many more or less moun¬ 
tainous districts in the North; it is not essentially a cotton growing 
district at all, but it has a tremendous industrial future. 

Mr. Keliher. I did not speak particularly as to his district; I was 
speaking of the South generally. 

Mr. Bennet. Here is one relation of the immigrant to the South. 
I took a trip through the South with Mr. Burnett, on the subject of 

49090—10-24 


370 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


peonage. Men are moving down to Florida, particularly from the 
Middle West, and taking up land, buying land, a few acres or more 
acres, and going into industries, thereby increasing the white popula¬ 
tion, and their places in the Middle West are being taken by people 
who go from my State, and their places in my State are being taken 
by the second generation of the foreigners. It is a cycle. We in¬ 
vestigated a case down there where a man was tried and his lawyer 
tried to show that he hadn’t had a fair trial because the majority of 
the jurors had been born outside of the State of Florida, and then- 

Mr. Burnett. There was good evidence that that was not a fact ? 

Mr. Bennet. Well, that question was raised. 

Mr. Burnett. So far as the south Italians coming into competition 
with our cotton raisers, that is not a fact, because they do not raise 
cotton. We have thousands of them in the Birmingham district, as it 
is called there, and they are all going in the coal mines and iron manu¬ 
facturing plants. Now, as to the Bohemians and Germans, they go 
into farming and make money as farmers. I will state that my col¬ 
league, Mr. Moore, has a great many Bohemians in his district, and he 
tells me they are as good farmers and as good citizens as there are 
there, and the same is true as to the Germans. 

Mr. Kustermann. Then, the Italians are not in your mines ? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes; they say the negro is a better workman than 
the Italian, but they hire the Italian to keep down expenses. 

Mr. Hayes. The Italian is not a miner. 

Mr. Kustermann. Then come to our country and see. 

Mr. Hayes. I have employed them by the hundreds and know 
what I am talking about. 

Mr. Keliher. A statement was made before the committee yester¬ 
day that the negro, for hard work, was a better laborer than the 
Italian. I had occasion almost daily, when I was living near the site 
of the present new Metropolitan Club, to pass while the excavating 
work was in progress. I saw the work of excavation being done by 
negro help; the builder was a very prominent builder in the country, 
and I was struck by the length of time it took to excavate that par¬ 
ticular corner; the soil was not hard; there was no blasting to be done; 
and in talking with a large contractor, who was here in Washington 
at that time, I made that observation; he said that with his help, 
which was largely Italian, he could excavate that place in, I think he 
said, one-third shorter time. In the North, where we are fairly famil¬ 
iar with this sort of thing, the Italian is considered the best man for 
rough, heavy labor. 

Mr. Burnett. You mean the south Italians ? 

Mr. Keliher. The south Italians. Now, I can speak with some 
degree of intelligence about the second generation of these foreigners. 
I was born in a section that was populated by them early, so that I 
have a very good idea. The first generation of the Jew, the Russian 
Jew, the Polish Jew, the Italian, the German, and the Irish—I am 
the son of an Irishman who came here in 1848, and I want to say- 

Mr. Bennet. And probably if they had had this particular re¬ 
strictive measure your father might have been barred out. 

Mr. Keliher. My father, fortunately, could have entered, for he 
had fortunately succeeded in getting an education. 

Mr. Hayes. Not many Irishmen were barred out. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


371 


Mr. Keliher. I doubt whether he could have entered if the money- 
in-the-pocket test was applied in his day, because he left a land, as 
you all know, that was a land of starvation, and he chose to come to 
this country rather than face that condition. 

Mr. Burnett. The south Italians have not been coming here long 
enough to furnish a large number of the second generation. 

Mr. Keliher. We have a goodly number of the second generation 
of the south Italian in my city, and they are doing very well. As I 
started to say that ample opportunity has been afforded me to 
observe the advancement of these immigrants. What they lacked 
they give their children and in these you note great progress. They 
have gone into our schools, these children of the first generation. 

Mr. Burnett. Born in America ? 

Mr. Keliher. Born in America; but some of whose parents had 
not been here long enough either to become naturalized or to become 
educated, because they toiled from early morning until late at night. 
These children of immigrant parents, Jews and Italian, are taking 
prizes at an amazing rate in our schools; they are considered among 
our best scholars; the avidity with which they seek education up our 
way—and I do not think our is any different than throughout the 
rest of the country—is remarkable; they attend our night schools; 
they are becoming stenographers; the daughters are going into the 
employment of the telephone companies, the sons into mercantile 
houses. They are doing splendidly, and they give most encouraging 
promise so far as citizenship is concerned. 

Mr. Bennet. Speaking of schools, I might say that in the last 
census the figures show that the children of the Italians went to school 
at an earlier age, stayed more days in the week, more weeks in the 
month, and more months in the year, and more years in school life 
than the children of the native born. 

Mr. Hayes. Who says that ? 

Mr. Bennet. The census, 1900. 

Mr. Burnett. There were but few of them here then. 

Mr. Bennet. Oh, yes, there were. 

Mr. Hayes. I want to say that in what I said about the Italian not 
being a good miner I do not wish to be understood as saying he is not 
a good worker, but he does not seem to be able to catch on with the 
mining work; he is not a natural miner. 

Mr. Kustermann. Our mines are filled with them. 

Mr. Hayes. Whereabouts ? 

Mr. Kustermann. Up in northern Michigan and in my State. 

Mr. Hayes. I have mined up there and there are very few of them 
where I mined. 

Mr. Keliher. This provision in Mr. Hayes’s bill to the effect that 
“an admissible alien over 16 years of age, or a person now or here¬ 
after in the United States of like age, may bring in or send for his wife, 
his mother, his affianced wife, or his father who is over 55 years of age, 
if they are otherwise admissible, whether they are able to read or not,” 
does not seem to me to be a very practical one; if put in operation it 
would have a tendency to increase deception, and the number of affi¬ 
anced wives, I think, of resident aliens, would increase at such an 
alarming pace that it would be necessary to soon legislate against that 
proposition. 


372 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Hayes. Have you visited Ellis Island and observed the regu¬ 
lations in regard to that very thing ? 

Mr. Keliher. I can not say that I am thoroughly familiar with 
them. 

Mr. Hayes. They do not permit anything of that kind; the young 
man must come there or they must be thoroughly satisfied from 
where he lives that his intentions are good; that sort of thing is all 
looked after. 

Mr. Keliher. I am afraid you will increase bigamy. 

Mr. Bennett. And yet with those regulations—which I agree 
with Mr. Hayes are very strict—the Commissioner-General says that 
the law is being violated in that regard, and asks us to pass a law 
reversing the practice of all time and provide that a foreign-born 
woman who marries a citizen must affirmatively prove that she is a 
person of good moral character after the marriage in order to be 
considered a citizen, because he says some are evading the law. 

Mr. Sabath. How long has the Commissioner of Immigration been 
in office ? 

Mr. Bennett. The Commissioner-General ? 

Mr. Hayes. About one year. 

Mr. Bennett. No; longer than that. 

Mr. Burnett. You mean at Ellis Island ? 

Mr. Bennet. About two years. 

Mr. Sabath. I mean the one who makes these recommendations ? 

Mr. Burnett. You mean Keefe? 

Mr. Sabath. Yes; how long has he been in office? 

Mr. Bennet. A year and a half, anyway. 

Mr. Hayes. Since the election, anyway. 

Mr. Bennet. My recollection is that he was appointed just prior 
to the election. 

Mr. Sabath. No; he was appointed after the election, because 
during the election he was busy electioneering. 

Mr. Burnett. He didn’t get busy until after the election. 

Mr. Sabath. The reason for that remark is that he makes so many 
ecommendations, and I hardly believe a man who has been in office 
a year, and has so many other things and duties to perform, would 
be in a position to know what really is demanded, required, and 
needed. 

Mr. Keliher. Now, as to this provision for a certificate of character 
that the immigrant is of good moral character, “ signed by and under 
the seal of the proper official whose duty it is to keep such record in 
the community from which they come,” it occurs to me that in many 
sections where people are, because of conditions, forced to leave, it is 
barely possible that a stubborn official might refuse a certificate of 
character, not because the applicant was not qualified by moral 
character and so forth to receive one, but because of perverseness, 
prejudice, or whatever might sway an official unfriendly or unsympa¬ 
thetic ; then what is going to happen to the immigrant who wants to 
come to this country ? To whom can he appeal to right the palpable 
wrong which has been done him ? I find no provision here for cases 
of that sort which, in my opinion, would be numerous if this bill be¬ 
came a law. I understood you to say, Mr. Hayes, and I think I caught 
you right, that there was a tendency on the part of those European 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 373 

authorities to dump these people over here. If that were true there 
would be- 

Mr. Hayes. If they are undesirable, yes. 

Mr. Keliher. There would be liable to be a wholesale presentation 
of certificates by people from communities desirous of being rid of 
them, and this would fall flat as a consequence. 

Mr. Hayes. We have got most of them already. 

Mr. Keliher. In that you and I differ. 

Mr. Burnett. You think that the officials of these countries would 
be so corrupt as to make false affidavits for that purpose ? 

Mr. Keliher. I believe it is possible; if it is true that the desire is 
so great to be rid of these people, I do not see that anything would 
stand in the path of carrying out their designs. 

Mr. Bennet. We had to stop the giving of Chinese certificates in 
China because there was a well-grounded suspicion that our Amer¬ 
ican officials were getting rich. 

Mr. Hayes. They were being bribed? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes. 

Mr. Burnett. If that kind of corruption exists among the officials, 
would it be safe to have people coming from the countries where 
officials are so corrupt ? 

Mr. Keliher. You hear it and I hear it, from certain men who 
have intense feelings and little knowledge on this subject, and, I 
think, are blind in their judgment, that some of our officials, who 
administer the immigration laws—while they do not say they are 
“ corrupt/’ they use a term which dangerously approaches it. 

Mr. Burnett. But you have repudiated that idea by saying they 
are efficiently administering the laws. 

Mr. Keliher. The point I make is that our officials are not corrupt, 
but that certain people still believe them corrupt, having no right to 
do so. 

Mr. Burnett. It is not what the people believe, but do you think 
they would be corrupt, as a matter of fact? 

Mr. Keliher. I have no doubt—I, of course, can not base it upon 
any definite knowledge—but I have no doubt that these certificates 
could be obtained by those not entitled to them; yes. 

Mr. Burnett. I think that is an unfortunate admission to be 
made by a man who wants to admit people from such countries. 

Mr. Keliher. But we do not admit them upon the say of foreign 
officials, corrupt or honest; we admit them upon their character, 
physical and moral, based upon standards fixed by our officials, and 
applied when they reach here. 

Mr. Burnett. If their officials are as corrupt as that—— 

Mr. Keliher. I am not speaking of general corruption; I am 
speaking of sporadic corruption. 

Mr. Sabath. We have enough of it here in this country. 

Mr. Hayes. Then you ought not to import any. 

Mr. Sabath. We are not importing the officials here, not importing 
their corrupt officials, nor do we desire them, but it is the people, 
and as a rule you can trust the people, in whose behalf Mr. Keliher 
is speaking, not the officials that are corrupt; you do not want to 
permit them to come. 




374 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. I understand that is a rather wholesale charge 
against officials, that wherever they wanted to dump them on us 
the officials themselves- 

Mr. Keliher. Perhaps I didn't quite understand you, and perhaps 
you didn’t quite understand me, and I must correct myself. I did 
not say I believed there would be a wholesale issuance of fraudulent 
certificates, but I think the possibility of fraudulent certificates being 
issued is great. 

Mr. Bennet. In other words, the same condition would come to 
exist there as has existed in our country, which led us to amend the 
naturalization laws? 

Mr. Keliher. Absolutely. 

Mr. Burnett. That was not the corruption of the officials so much, 
as I understand it, as it was the false affidavits of those seeking natural¬ 
ization. 

Mr. Bennet. You do not suppose a man would naturalize 2,500 in 
one day in my city without something doing? 

Mr. Burnett. Well, New York is something of an exception. 

Mr. Keliher. I am still firmly of the opinion—and I do not pre¬ 
tend to have been a deep student of this question—that the character 
of an immigrant coming into this country should be decided on this 
side of the water and not on the other side. 

Now, in section 6 you add another section by which you propose a 
change in existing law, “That in addition to the aliens now excluded 
by law the following shall also be, and hereby are, excluded from 
admission into the United States, to wit: All girls under 20 years 
of age, unaccompanied by one or both of their parents, at the discre¬ 
tion of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor or under such regulations 
as he may from time to time prescribe.” I think that would be 
very undesirable. 

Mr. Hayes. The law that has been passed since this bill was intro¬ 
duced, regulating the white-slave traffic, of course removes the neces¬ 
sity of such legislation in this bill. 

Mr. Keliher. I do know this, that there are numerous Swedish, 
Irish, German, and European girls who come over here, unaccom¬ 
panied by parents, to become domestics, and, as you know, the 
material in line here to-day is very limited. 

Mr. Hayes. Of course the Secretary of Commerce and Labor would 
not exclude them? 

Mr. Keliher. Unless you got a Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
who believed that all people coming here were a menace to the 
country. 

Mr. Hayes. That is not worth discussing, because we have passed 
a bill that covers that ground. 

Mr. Keliher. Now, your provision for a certificate of residence of 
unnaturalized residents I think is rather drastic. I think there are 
many people in the United States who are still aliens (aliens not by 
choice, but because of inability to meet the requirements of the nat¬ 
uralization courts) who are pretty good residents, and I think the 
process of practically branding them and treating them as suspects 
is- 

Mr. Hayes. That is not justified. 

Mr. Keliher. You propose to take a man, even if he has been 
in this country twenty years, who happens to be not naturalized 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


375 


because he can not, to the bureau of naturalization and say: “This 
is John Murphy; he came from Ireland twenty years ago; he is not 
a citizen, and I want you to give him a certificate of residence.” I 
think that would work a hardship. Of course I think the element 
you desire to reach is a different element altogether, but the fact 
remains, nevertheless, that this man I have described comes under 
that provision, which I consider altogether too drastic, and too like 
methods in vogue in certain European countries. It is un-American, 
in my opinion. 

I do not know that I have anything further to add except to state 
that I speak here not alone as the representative of a constituency 
that is made up of numerous newly made American citizens, but I 
speak for large industrial and commercial interests in my community 
that have given considerable thought and study to this subject and 
are firmly convinced that business would suffer if such a provision as 
the educational test were applied as a prerequisite of admission of 
immigrants coming to this country. I wish also to record my dissent 
from certain views expressed here that Jewish and Italian immigration 
constitutes a present or a likely menace to our institutions. We in the 
North have received and assimilated them and the prevailing opinion 
of unprejudiced students of the immigration question is to let it alone 
aside from enforcing the present adequate laws upon the subject. 

Mr. Bennet. Representative Harrison, of New York, desires to 
address the committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS BURTON HARRISON, A REPRE¬ 
SENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

Mr. Harrison. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
beg your indulgence to address myself for a few moments only to 
one particular phase of the Hayes bill. I refer to the clause requir¬ 
ing an educational test for immigrants. 1 appear here as the repre¬ 
sentative of an east-side district in New York, which is composed of 
the men of many nations. 

Mr. Bennet. An uptown east-side district ? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir. I apologize for a personal reference, 
but I also appear as the scion of an American stock which, on both 
sides of my family, has been in the United States since the colony 
of Virginia vras first discovered. I therefore venture to hope that 
in discussing this subject I speak for a certain part, at least, of the 
oldest American stock. I am unalterably opposed to an educational 
test for the admission of immigrants. I fail to see in what respect 
a man who is able to read differs from a man who is unable to read, 
so far as his ability to work or even his future ability to become a 
citizen is concerned. The illiterates who have come into the east 
side of New York have shown, in their children, and even in the older 
people themselves, an ardent desire to educate themselves which is 
unsurpassed among the people of native stock. 

Judging from those of the second generation, whom I know and 
whom 1 have seen in my district, I believe that they have helped to 
form the prosperity of our community, not only from the economic 
standpoint, to which the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keliher, 
addressed himself so ably, but from the point of view of the best citi¬ 
zenship of our Republic. Mr. Chairman, the unfortunate people of 


376 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


European stock who come from countries where, by reason of govern¬ 
mental incapacity or oppression, the advantages of education have 
not been opened to them for many generations, are still the same men 
under their skin, of the same blood and the same stock as other Euro¬ 
pean emigrants to this country who are educated. Give them a 
chance and they will educate themselves immediately in our country. 
Give us a chance to employ them upon our rough labor and it will 
immensely increase the economic prosperity of our country. 

Mr. Burnett. Do you think the south Italians are of the same 
stock as those from northwestern Europe ? 

Mr. Harrison. He is not of the same stock as those from north¬ 
western Europe, but is of the same stock as many educated Italians 
who come over here, and in my judgment he should not be discrimi¬ 
nated against on educational grounds. 

Mr. Hayes. May I ask you, do you think that education tends to 
elevate a man or not ? 

Mr. Harrison. Of course, it tends to elevate him. 

Mr. Hayes. Do you think it tends to make them better citizens 
or not ? 

Mr. Harrison. Well, personally I view with abhorence the educa¬ 
tional test as a prerequisite even for citizenship; but I venture to 
suggest to the gentleman that that is not the subject before this com¬ 
mittee; you are now talking about immigration, not about citi¬ 
zenship. 

Mr. Hayes. I think it is. Do you not recognize that the results of 
education are transmitted by heredity ? 

Mr. Harrison. I recognize no such thing. 

Mr. Hayes. You do not think, then, that intelligence is transmitted 
by heredity ? 

Mr. Harrison. I think character is transmitted by heredity. 

Mr. Hayes. Not capacity or intelligence ? 

Mr. Harrison. Character, but not education. 

Mr. Hayes. But not capacity? 

Mr. Harrison. Well, in so far as character constitutes capacity, 
certainly. But, answering the gentleman further, I would rather 
have an immigrant come into this country with his mind open to 
receive the benefits of American education than to have a man edu¬ 
cated in an abortive and improper view of life which he obtained 
under an improper system of education in some other country. 

Mr. Hayes. I quite agree with you; but what I am trying to get 
at is this, as to progeny, the result of generations af ignorance and 
squalor; I want to ask if you think that that kind of progeny would 
have the same capacity and the same character, if you please to put 
it that way, as the progeny that comes from a long line of intelligent 
and self-reliant and educated people ? 

Mr. Harrison. To answer the gentleman 1 will ask him in all 
fairness whether he believes that the discrimination he would practice 
against these immigrants on an educational ground would not lie 
equally well against the enormous section of our own native-born 
citizens who are, unhappily, unable to read or write ? 

Mr. Hayes. I know of no such body of citizens; in my section of 
the country there is no such body of citizens. 

Mr. Harrison. Well, the gentleman is fortunate. I will say fur¬ 
ther that in the congressional district I represent in the House the 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


377 


second generation of incoming aliens have contributed greatly to our 
welfare and will enhance the value of the whole body politic. For 
my part, I think a man who is not able to write is just as good with a 
hoe or shovel as the man who is able to write, and that the man of 
European stock from a part of Europe where such an opportunity 
is not given, is just as able to prove himself a worthy candidate for 
citizenship as the man from there who is able to write. I therefore 
hope that the committee will vote down this clause in the bill. 

Mr. Hayes. May I ask the gentleman another question? Have 
you ever employed labor to any large extent ? 

Mr. Harrison. I have not. 

Mr. Hayes. Well, I have, and I want to say that my experience is 
that a man with some education and some development of the intel¬ 
lect can, even with the hoe, do a great deal more and better work than 
the man who is not educated. 

Mr. Harrison. The gentleman also knows that a man who has the 
character of a scoundrel is ten thousand times more dangerous if he 
is educated than if he is not ? 

Mr. Hayes. We all recognize that. 

Mr. Keliher. Do you consider the ability to read and write the 
sole mark of intelligence ? 

Mr. Hayes. Of course not. 

Mr. Keliher. These people may naturally be a very intelligent 
people, but because of lack of opportunity to get a schooling may be 
unable to read. I have in mind a man in my city who could recite 
Shakespeare through and through, but he could not read a line; it 
had been read to him on board ship and he could not read a line. 

Mr. Hayes. Of course, there are among all peoples what we know 
as geniuses; I am speaking of the great body of the people. 

Mr. Keliher. The answer to that is that we are going to legislate 
for the future as well as for the present, and it is proven by our gov¬ 
ernmental reports, and proven to my satisfaction by personal obser¬ 
vation, that the children of these illiterates as you describe them, 
become very literate. 

Mr. Hayes. Of course, we are spending a good many millions of 
dollars for education, and if it is not accomplishing anything for the 
future, I think it is poorly spent. 

Mr. Bennet. Mr. Harrison probably has more Italians in his dis¬ 
trict than any other Representative, at least he has an extremely large 
number, and I would like to ask him: What are the second generation 
of the Italians, the children of 10 to 15 years of age, doing in relation 
to education in your district ? 

Mr. Harrison. I believe they are the prize’children in our public 
schools, and they are among the best educated when they get through 
with them; and instead of devoting themselves to manual occupa¬ 
tions, as their parents did, they are going into professions and helping 
to build up the community in that way. If you are going to shut 
out what you call this illiterate labor you are not going to have, in a 
few years, any labor, because these people do not stay as laborers. 

Mr. Hayes. This whole matter is one of cheap labor; you can get 
all the labor you want if you will pay for it. 

Mr. Burnett. Mr. Harrison, if that is correct, if that labor is to 
be exhausted, how are we going to supply that labor, if these people 


378 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


who are educated stay out of the laboring work ? Wouldn’t the same 
man, the American man, go back to it ? 

Mr. Harrison. I do not think so; that is a very serious problem, 
and we must not now do anything to hamper it. 

Mr. Bennet. Do these Italian parents who are, for the most part, 
uneducated, keep the children in school or not in school ? 

Mr. Harrison. They keep them in school, as the chairman has 
stated, proportionately more than the children of any other race. I 
thank the chairman for giving me an opportunity to restate what he 
has stated. 

(At 12 o’clock m. the committee adjourned, to meet Monday, 
March 14, 1910, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.) 


March 15, 1910. 

Representative Howell, chairman of the committee, received a let¬ 
ter from Josiah C. Pumpelly, of New York, relative to the attitude 
of the Union League Club, of New York City, on the immigration 
question. He also received a communication from Hon. C. S. 
Deneen, governor of Illinois, relative to his views on the subject of 
immigration, and correspondence of Governor Deneen with Julian 
Mack, president of the League for the Protection of Immigrants. The 
Deneen correspondence follows: 


State of Illinois, 
Executive Department, 
Springfield, March 16, 1910. 


Dear Sir: Hon. Julian Mack, president of the League for the Protection of Immi¬ 
grants and judge of the Illinois appellate court at Chicago, wrote to me on the 10th 
mstant calling my attention to a letter submitted to the Committee on Immigration 
and Naturalization by Mr. David Ross, secretary of the bureau of labor statistics of 
the State of Illinois, dated May 21, 1907, to which he takes exception. Judge Mack 
has requested me to express to your committee my views upon this subject. 

I inclose herewith a copy of Judge Mack’s letter of the 10th instant and a copy of 
my reply thereto. These are self-explanatory, and will answer the purpose of giving 
you my views upon the subject to which Judge Mack has called my attention. 

I should be pleased to have the correspondence of Judge Mack and myself incorpo¬ 
rated in the hearings on immigration bills should you hereafter publish any other 
matter of a similar character to that published in your report of May 4, 1910. 
Respectfully, yours, 

(Signed) C. S. Deneen. 

Hon. Benjamin Howell, 

Chairman Committee on Immigration , 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 


Chicago, March 10, 1910 

Hon. Charles S. Deneen, 

Springfield, III. 

My Dear Governor: In the report of the hearings on immigration bills before the 
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives, under 
date of March 4,1910, there appears a communication from the president of the National 
Board of Trade, inclosing copies of numerous answers received by him from governors 
of most of the States and other men of prominence, in answer to a circular letter sent 
out by him in reference to the effect of immigration on this country. 

At page 22 there appears a letter bearing date May 21, 1907; I inclose herewith 
printed copy. 

If Mr. Ross is correct in his statement that he was expressing your sentiments, then 
the matter is extremely serious. 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


379 


I want to call your special attention to the statement: “Over 50 per cent of our 
foreign immigrants come from southern Europe, are of Slavic origin, and therefore 
represent a very low order of civilization.” 

The “therefore” is a direct insult to all people from southern Europe, and par¬ 
ticularly to all people of Slavic origin. 

Personally, of course, I have not the slightest interest in this matter. My people 
are not of Slavic origin and do not come from southern Europe. But, as an American, 
as president of the League for the Protection of Immigrants, and as a student, I most 
respectfully protest against such an utterly absurd characterization and condemnation 
not merely of one nation, but of many nations and races. 

The fact that 25 per cent of the foreign immigrants in the year 1906, if that be a fact, 
were unable to read or write does not permit of the conclusion stated that these people 
are of inferior blood. As we all know, in many European countries the best and 
sturdiest of the poor people are denied the opportunity of education, and we further 
know that they not only take full advantage of the opportunities afforded in America 
of giving their children an education, but they themselves, even as adults, are eager 
in every way to improve their opportunities here. 

You will observe that the conclusions reached by the National Board of Trade, on 
consideration of the many responses received by them, are completely at variance 
with the conclusions stated by Mr. Ross. 

Knowing you as well as I do, I feel certain that this letter does not express your 
sentiments, and I deem it important, both as a matter of justice to the people so grossly 
insulted in this letter and as an evidence of my sincere friendship for you, to call your 
attention to it and to suggest to you that you write a letter to the Committee on Immi¬ 
gration, expressing your own views of the subject, which I am sure are just as liberal 
as those of any man in the State. 

I shall be glad to talk this matter over with you at any time if you care to do so. I 
shall be glad also of an opportunity to make some suggestions to you in regard to the 
south side state employment agency, as to which I wrote you some time ago. 

Very sincerely .yours, 

(Signed) Julian Mack. 


March 14, 1910. 

My Dear Judge: Your letter of the 10th instant, together with a copy of the report 
of hearings on immigration bills, dated March 4,1910, was delivered to me at the Union 
League Club, Chicago. 

I am greatly obliged to you for calling my attention to the letter of Mr. Ross of May 
21, 1907. Your communication gives me the first information I have received regard¬ 
ing the contents of his letter. 'From the contents of Mr. Ross’s letter, it is evident that 
Mr. Trenor’s letter must have been received at my office and referred by my secretary, 
in ordinary course, to Mr. Ross for answer. Had I received any information about the 
contents of Mr. Ross’s letter, I should have directed him not to send it. 

The letter does not express my views regarding immigration from southern Europe 
or that of Slavic origin. It is entirely contrary to the opinions I entertain and have 
often expressed upon this subject. Nor is the letter in harmony with the views of the 
citizens of this State, as I understand them. We have a large number of citizens of 
Slavic origin and from southern Europe who are among our most industrious citizens. 

I believe I express the sentiments of the people of Illinois, as well as my own, when 
I say that they favor no test for immigrants except that of character and fitness for 
citizenship. These tests are abundantly met by the great body of immigrants of Slavic 
origin and those from southern Europe to whom Mr. Ross has made such an unfortunate 
reference. 

I thank you for your suggestion that I communicate my views to the Committee on 
Immigration so that the attitude of our State in this matter may not be misinterpreted. 
Yours trulv, 

(Signed) C. S. Deneen. 

Hon. Julian Mack, 

Illinois Appellate Court , 

Ashland Block, Chicago, III. 



380 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


The letter from Mr. Pumpelly follows: 

542 West One Hundred and Twelfth Street, 

New York , March 4, 1910. 

Hon. Benjamin F. Howell, 

Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization , 

House of Representatives , Capitol, Washington , D. C. 

Dear Sir: As the committee on political reform of the Union League Club has 
received many letters regarding this report on restriction and regulation of immigra¬ 
tion, and desiring that there may be no misunderstanding of the matter on the part of 
your committee, I take the liberty of writing to you direct and to request that you will, 
if such course seems fitting, have the following statement and resolutions published in 
the hearings of your committee. 

As a veteran member of the Union League Club of New York, and feeling that as a 
club, conspicuous for nearly half a century for its loyal advocacy of American ideals, 
it could not be indifferent on this important subject of immigration. I offered at our 
meeting December 9, 1909, the following preamble and resoultion: 

“Whereas the Republican party in its national platform of 1896 and 1900 declares 
that ‘in the further interest of American workmen we favor a more effective restriction 
of cheap labor from foreign lands;’ and 

“Whereas the foreign steamship companies are now bringing to this country a far 
less desirable class of aliens than formerly, many of whom, being single men, are able 
and willing to live in a manner impossible for decent American citizens, and thus 
drive the latter out of employment and into a miserable and sometimes dependent 
condition; and 

“Whereas the coming of enormous numbers of such a class of foreigners is already 
tending to undermine our national institutions and standards of living and to alter 
the public ideals, driving many of our citizens into Canada, and causing a lessening 
of the birthrate among those already here; and 

“Whereas our present immigration laws are inadequate to deal with this matter and 
to prevent the entrance of many aliens, who quickly become inmates of our prisons, 
hospitals, and asylums for the insane, and burdens upon public and private charity; 
and 

“Whereas the enactment of proper laws, which are desired by our people, has been 
repeatedly defeated through the organized effort of the steamship companies and the 
employers of cheap labor, and especially by various societies of foreign-born residents 
organized on racial lines, Now therefore 

“ j Be it resolved by the Union League Club of New York City, That we heartily indorse 
the attitude of the present administration and of the present Commissioner of Immi¬ 
gration of the port of New York in their more efficient enforcement of the existing 
laws; and be it further 

“ Resolved, That we urge upon Congress the immediate enactment of laws adopting 
or closely following the lines of the Overman bill (H. R. 1438) to secure the selection 
of a better class of immigrants by means of an increase of the head tax to at least $10, 
the exclusion of adult aliens who are unable to read some language or dialect, and 
of those who have not enough money in their possession to support them while trying 
to find work and to carry them to their avowed destination, and such other measures 
as will exclude all aliens who are below the mental, moral, and physical average of 
our citizens; and be it further 

“Resolved , That we are opposed to the plan proposed in some quarters of free 
government transportation to immigrants seeking work in the West or South and to 
government aid in distributing such aliens, realizing that such plans, being known 
abroad, will inevitably result in the coming of constantly increasing numbers and 
not of the class desired; and be it further 

“Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the President of the 
United States, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, the Speaker of the National 
House of Representatives, and to each of the Senators and Representatives in Con¬ 
gress of the State of New York.” 

This resolution being deemed too important to be discussed and decided upon at 
that meeting, was referred on vote to the committee on political reform, with request 
that it report on the same at the meeting in February, 1910. 

The said committee, after very careful consideration, did on February 10, at a 
regular meeting of the club, make the following report: 

“To the Union League Club: 

“The committee on political reform begs leave to report that at the December 
meeting of the club the resolution presented by Mr. Pumpelly in respect of immigra¬ 
tion was referred to this committee by a vote of the club with directions to report in 
regard thereon at the February meeting. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


381 


“The committee has given a great deal of time to an investigation of the facts, and 
to the consideration of the various arguments which have been made in regard to 
the immigration laws. The subject is one of paramount importance and the club is, 
as the committee believes, under great obligations to the member who brought the 
matter to its attention. It involves large interests, and requires the most careful 
attention and the most deliberate action, if proper action is to be taken. It is now 
being subjected to a most careful and thorough investigation by a special com¬ 
mittee appointed by Congress upon which are members of both the Senate and of the 
House. A very large sum of money is said to have been expended in this investi¬ 
gation, probably more than one-half a million of dollars. The report of that com¬ 
mission has not yet been made. It is understood, however, that it will be made 
some time during the present session of Congress. 

“Your committee is unwilling to ask the club to take definite action upon this 
great subject in advance of the publication of the report above referred to. It will 
undoubtedly add much important and reliable information to the mass of facts and 
consideration already in possession by the public and all undoubtedly worthy of 
thoughtful attention. Your committee, therefore, begs to say that it does not feel 
justified in the present condition of this great discussion to recommend the adoption 
of the resolution presented by Mr. Pumpelly, a copy of which is annexed thereto. 
It is, however, willing to, and does recommend, the adoption of the following reso¬ 
lution which embraces some of the topics suggested in the resolution referred to it. 

“Dated, New York, February 9, 1910.” 

“Whereas the Republican party has declared in its national platforms of 1896 
and 1900 that, in the interest of the American workingman, it favors a more effective 
restriction of cheap labor from foreign lands; and 

“ Whereas many of the immigrants now landing in this country are of a less desirable 
class than those of former years; and 

“Whereas the coming of great numbers of such class tends, by the changing of 
standards of living and the lowering of public ideals, to undermine our national 
institutions: Now, therefore, be it 

“ Resolved by the Union League Club , of New York City , That we heartily indorse 
the attitude of the present national administration and of the present commissioner 
of immigration of the port of New York, as manifested in the more efficient enforce¬ 
ment of existing laws; 

“ Resolved , That we demand in every port of entry in the United States a strict 
enforcement of that provision of the present law which excludes ‘all persons who are 
found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally and phys¬ 
ically defective, such mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect 
the ability of such alien to earn a living;’ 

“Resolved , That we favor such amendments to the present law as will authorize 
the deportation of any immigrant who becomes a public charge for any cause within 
one year of landing, and as will permit the deportation within one year after landing 
of such persons as were, in fact, at time of landing, paupers, or likely to become public 
charges, even though such disability was not detected at the time of said landing; 

“Resolved , That we urge upon Congress the enactment of laws which will secure 
the selection of a better class of immigrants by the exclusion of such adult aliens 
as are unable to read a language or dialect and of such as have not in their possession 
sufficient money to assure their support while seeking employment; and be it further 

“Resolved , That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the President of the 
United States, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, the Speaker of the National 
House of Representatives, and to each of the Senators and Representatives in Con¬ 
gress of the State of New York.” 

The above was mailed to me from the office of the secretary of the Union League 
Club. 

Personally, I am in favor of the passage of the bill presented by Congressman E. A. 
Hayes, of California, as I believe it to be an admirable and greatly needed restrictive 
and regulative measure, and I was fully prepared at the meeting to present the pro¬ 
visions of both this and the Overman bill, so that our members could have voted 
intelligently as to recommending the enactment of one or both. 

However, I am pleased that our club so unanimously passed this resolution, and I 
trust their action will meet with the approval of your honorable committee. 

Please inform me of your receipt of this communication, and send me a copy of your 
printed proceedings. 

With much respect, I am, 

Yours, very truly, 


(Signed) Josiah C. Pumpelly. 


382 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Other letters received by Mr. Howell follow: 

Washington, D. C., March 14, 1910. 

Hon. Benjamin F. Howell, 

Chairman Committee on Immigration, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith copy of resolution adopted by the 
Republican League of Clubs of the State of New York at its annual convention held 
in Syracuse, N. Y., on the 11th instant. 

Very respectfully, Jno. J. D. Trenor, 

Chairman, Committee on Special Organization, 
Republican League of Clubs of the State of New York. 


Whereas the United States Government, from its inception, has welcomed worthy 
immigrants, and 

Whereas immigration from foreign countries has so largely contributed to our up¬ 
building by furnishing the basic labor necessary to our work of unparalleled develop¬ 
ment, and without which much progress would have been impossible, and 

Whereas the vast majority of immigrants have in themselves, and in their children, 
shown an earnest and marked disposition to imbibe the true spirit of our free insti¬ 
tutions, thereby becoming worthy citizens, and 

Whereas existing laws, properly enforced, offer an adequate safeguard against the 
undesirable or criminal classes, and 

Whereas the present head tax is amply sufficient to meet all necessary expehses 
of the enforcement of the immigration laws: 

Resolved, That the Republican League of Clubs of the State of New York, in annual 
session assembled, is heartily in favor of continuing immigration of those morally 
and physically fit, and is strongly opposed to both the so-called educational test, and 
to any increase in the head tax levied on immigrants. 

(Signed) Jno. J. D. Trenor, Chairman. 

Arthur F. Day. 

Edward W. Duffie. 

Frank L. Frugone. 

Salvatore Pellettieri. 

Syracuse, N. Y., March 11, 1910. 


The State School of Agriculture, 

Morrisville, N. Y., March 21,1910. 

The following resolutions were adopted at a recent meeting of the 
board of trustees of the State School of Agriculture, at Morrisville: 

u Resolved, That it is the opinion of the board of trustees of the 
State School of Agriculture, at Morrisville, N. Y., that one of the 
crying needs of the farmers of the State of New York and of the coun¬ 
try at large is an adequate supply of intelligent farm labor; and this 
board gives its hearty approval to any action which can or may be 
taken by the National Congress or the legislature of the State of New 
York to supply such labor through the enlargement of the present 
national bureau of distribution, and the creation by New York State 
of the proposed bureau recommended by the state commission, 
which in 1908-9 investigated labor conditions in New York. 

11 Resolved, That this resolution be spread upon the minutes of this 
board and copies thereof forwarded to the proper authorities at 
Albany and Washington. 

11 Resolved, That the secretary of this board be directed to carry 
on the purpose of these resolutions.” 

Yours, truly, 

(Signed) John H. Broad, 

Secretary. 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


383 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Monday , March 14, 1910. 

The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m., Hon. Benjamin F. Howell 
(chairman) presiding. Others present were Representatives Hayes, 
Burnett, Sabath, Moore, of Pennsylvania, and O’Connell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. BURNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA. 

Mr. Burnett. I want to file, without going over it again, the 
remarks I submitted some two years ago on the question of the 
illiteracy test, and enlarge a little on that: 

Mr. Burnett. Mr. Chairman, I want, at the outset, to offer a few suggestions in 
favor of what is known as the educational test, and I desire to state that in doing so 
I am not a “Know-nothing,” and 1 am not one of those who subscribe to the doctrine 
of “America for Americans” alone. I believe that this educational test will give us 
a better class of immigration—that is, more of the better class—and at the same time 
will reduce those that most of us, at least, believe are not the better class, to say nothing 
as to whether they are desirable or not. 

I have not looked at the Gardner bill, but I want to read, for the benefit of the 
committee, the bill that I presume it is, the section that we reported at the first session 
of the last Congress, in order to show by that, as I think I can, that it is a conservative 
measure; that it is not extreme in any way whatever. It is section 38 of the bill that 
was reported—not the bill that was passed; because the bill as passed virtually sub¬ 
stituted a commission, of which I am a member, and of which the chairman of this 
committee and Mr. Bennet are members, and which really, I think, was created for 
the purpose of preventing any legislation along restrictive lines at that time. Al¬ 
though I was fortunate in being a member of that commission, yet I am free to say 
that I believe that that amendment was made as a subterfuge, for the purpose of post¬ 
poning and delaying restrictive legislation, if not defeating it entirely. 

Mr. Kustermann. Mr. Burnett, let me ask you a question right there. Have you 
not been convinced, from making that trip, that it was a good idea to send some com¬ 
mittee or commission over there? 

Mr. Burnett. I thought that all the time, that it was a very good idea; but I did 
not believe it was a good idea to postpone legislation that we needed at once by doing 
that. I think we have gained some information that will be of value to the country; 
but I believe that immediate action on the part of Congress at that time would have 
been better for the country than any good that can grow out of the appointment of a 
commission. 

Mr. Sabath. What section did you refer to a while ago? 

Mr. Burnett. It is section 38 as reported. You will find it in the bill as reported 
by the committee, Mr. Sabath—section 38. It reads as follows: 

“That no alien over 16 years of age physically capable of reading shall be admitted 
to the United States until he has proved to the satisfaction of the proper inspection 
officers that he can read English or some other language or dialect.” 

There is a great misconception, Mr. Chairman, in regard to what we who favor the 
educational test were advocating at that time and advocate still. We did not require 
them to even read and write English; but we allowed them, if they could read 
English or some other language or dialect, to come in. That word “dialect” was put 
in there, as I remember it,-for the purpose especially of meeting the case of the people 
in Russia who read and spoke the Yiddish dialect, that has not risen to the dignity of 
a distinct and separate language. Reading further from section 38: 

“And the Secretary of Commerce and Labor is hereby authorized and directed to 
prescribe from time to time such methods and rules as he may think best for the 
purpose of testing the ability of such immigrants to read.” 

It did not stop even there. It goes on and says: 

“ Provided , That an admissible alien over 16 years of age, or a person now or here¬ 
after in the United States of like age, may bring in or send for his wife, his mother, 
his grandmother, his aflianced wife, his father who is over 55 years of age, or his grand¬ 
father, if they are otherwise admissible, whether they are able to read or not; and 
such persons shall be permitted to land: Provided further, That a daughter not exceed¬ 
ing 21 years of age or a son not exceeding 18 years of age, otherwise admissible, if 


384 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


accompanying an admissible alien father or mother, shall be permitted to land 
whether said daughter or son is able to read or not.” 

It strikes me that that is not an extreme educational test. The purpose of it, so far 
as I was concerned, Mr. Chairman, was not to keep away the people of the desirable 
countries of Europe; and I want to call attention here to the effect that it would have 
so far as those countries are concerned. 

We will take, for instance, the people from the country of which my distinguished 
friend here, Mr. Sabath, is a native—Bohemia. Only 2 per cent of those even over 
14 years of age—2 out of every 100—would be excluded. And when we increase the 
age to 16 years it would be perhaps less than 2 per cent of his nationality that would 
be cut off. As to the nationality that my friend, Mr. Ktistermann, represents (the 
Germans), there would be cut off only 7 per cent of those who are over 14 years of 
age. And, as I say, the bill went to 16 and exempted quite a number of other rela¬ 
tives, as you saw by the reading of the section. In the case of the Irish, who we all 
think are desirable people, as we do these other people that I have just mentioned, 
there would not be more than 2.2 per cent of them affected by this bill—less, really, 
perhaps, than the percentage of our own people on this side of the water who can not 
read. 

So, you see, gentlemen, that it is not an extreme educational test that we advo¬ 
cated then or that we are advocating now; and that is upon a basis of those over 14 
years of age, whereas our bill only applied to those that were over 16 years of age. 
And even then, as I said, it admitted a great many others who come within the scope 
of the relatives that were exempted there. 

As I said a moment ago, this is not to my mind, simply for the purpose of excluding 
a lot of people who I feel are undesirable; but it is for the purpose of encouraging a 
greater influx of the nationalities of northwestern Europe that can come up to the 
test and be admitted. In my travels in Europe as a member of this commission I 
found this proposition, especially among the German people: I said, “Why is it that 
so few of your people are now coming to America?” “Well,” one of them said, “one 
thing is that we are doing better; our country is prospering better than it has been, 
and emigration is really discouraged by our people and by the officials of the country; ” 
and I think that is true. Another reason, expressed by several of them that I talked 
to, was this: “Because too many of the low-priced laborers from southern Europe 
are going to America. Now, why should we, who are doing well at home, go to 
America to come in competition with them? Possibly, while wages are good and 
work is plenty, there will be no very great depression; but whenever there come 
hard times, and a crisis is impending, then we will come in competition with that 
low class of labor.” 

There is another thing, Mr. Chairman, in that regard: The people from these coun¬ 
tries that I have mentioned, especially those that I have called attention to, and I 
might say the French, the English (very few of the French come), the Germans, the 
Scandinavians, the Scotch, and all the people of northwestern Europe, usually come 
as homeseekers. They come for the purpose of making their homes among the people 
of this country. When you come to the Italians, the south Italians especially, 
because in the case of the north Italians, as I will show directly, only 10 per cent of 
them would be cut off; and they are people who go into the country, who go to the 
farms, who come for the purpose, a great many of them, of locating and remaining 
in our country—when you take the south Italians, the Greeks, the Syrians, and those 
people bordering immediately along the shores of the Mediterranean, as a rule they 
come for the purpose of getting American money and either sending it back to their 
homes or returning with it after a while. 

Mr. Kustermann. Mr. Burnett, excuse me for a question. 

Mr. Burnett. Certainly. 

Mr. Kustermann. I just happened to come across a little extract from a paper 
which I would like to refer to. You spoke of the Greeks. 

Mr. Burnett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kustermann. We have quite a number of the Greeks in our State, especially 
in Milwaukee. This paper says that Milwaukee now has a colony of about 3,000 
Greeks, most of whom are industrious, hard-working residents. 

Mr. Burnett. Yes. 

Mr. Kustermann. Now, we are satisfied with the Greeks; and if you do not like 
them in your State we will take them in ours. 

Mr. Burnett. That might be true in many localities, Mr. Chairman, as to the Jap 
and the Chinaman, too. They are industrious people. They are just as industrious 
as the Greek or the Italian or the American. They are a thrifty people, too; and 
some localities, as I have no doubt I can prove by my distinguished friend from 
California (Mr. Hayes), would like to get them. But the question is, Mr. Chairman, 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


385 


is it for the common good, the common weal of the great American people, and those 
that come here for the purpose of helping to build up their homes and build up our 
country, that these people should come in in great numbers? 

I want now to call your attention- 

Mr. O’Connell. Before you pass on will you let me ask you a question? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. O’Connell. How do you explain the fact that the Northeastern States, such 
as Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, are very 
densely populated with home builders, and that those homes are composed of these 
people whom you talk about, whereas in your part of the country, where no immi¬ 
gration has come, you have not this state of affairs? 

Mr. Burnett. What state of affairs? 

Mr. O’Connell. The homes; you have not the great number of homes that we 
have. 

Mr. Burnett. Why, you are altogether mistaken in regard to that. I expect, 
Mr. Chairman, that when you come to the South you will find more people in propor¬ 
tion to population owning their own homes than you will find in the Northeast. 

Mr. O’Connell. Not for the territory. 

Mr. Hayes. Oh, yes; you are mistaken about that. 

Mr. Burnett. Yes; you are altogether mistaken about that. 

Mr. O’Connell. No; I am not mistaken about that. Your State of Alabama is 
not nearly as densely populated as mine is. 

Mr. Burnett. Why, of course not. In your cities they are congested and crowded 
in the tenement houses. That is where the great number of them have gone, and not 
to the country. 

Mr. O’Connell. Oh, but you are wrong about that, so far as up in my country is 
concerned. 

Mr. Burnett. I will state this as another proposition; and I believe that every 
gentleman, whether he agrees with me or not, will bear me out in it, that most of the 
people from these undesirable sections do not go to the country. They huddle and 
herd and congest in the great cities of the Northeast. Take the great city of New 
York. Nearly every Italian that comes over here has his way paid to New York, 
and thence a few of them to some other city, perhaps. They do not go to the country. 
I undertake to say that in New England or anywhere else you do not find one in ten 
thousand, or perhaps one in twenty thousand, of the south Italian immigrants who 
goes to the country and seeks his home in the country. As I said a moment ago, 
that is not true to so great an extent with the north Italians, and those right along the 
same line. The Bohemians over 14 years of age who came last year were 11,015 in 
number; of that entire 11,015 there were only 216 over 14 years of age that could not 
read. Those are all that would be cut out, Mr. Chairman. Then you take the Fin¬ 
nish—while they are Russian citizens, in a Russian country, they are up there con¬ 
tiguous to the Scandinavians, to Norway and Sweden, and they are virtually of the 
same class of people. Although they are under the same laws with many of the 
illiterates of Russia, although they have the same King and the same legislative 
bodies, of the 13,893 who came only 351 were illiterates. 

Take the English, and of 43,144 who came there were only 536 illiterates. Of the 
French, of 8,390 who came there were only 170 illiterates. Of the Germans, of 78,091 
who came there were only 5,310 illiterates. Of the Greeks, of 45,464 who came—I 
mean over 14 years of age in each of these statements—there were 13,883 that could 
not read a word even of their own language. And here in passing let me remark, Mr. 
Chairman, that there were really more of each one of these nationalities that could 
not read than I have stated, because no test was applied to them. The mere question 
is asked by the men in charge of the immigration stations as to whether they can read 
or write or not. Then these people state, without any test being applied, as to whether 
they are able to read or write, and no doubt many of them state falsely as to this. 

Of the Irish, there were 36,463 that came who were over 14 years of age, and only 
713 of them were unable to read. Of the north Italians—now, here I want to call 
your attention again to the difference between the north and the south Italians. Of 
the north Italians there were 47,555 who came, and only 4,741 who were unable to 
read—about 10 per cent. Of the south Italians there were 217,607 who came, and 
115,803 of them over 14 years of age were unable to read. Of the Russians there were 
16,000 in round numbers who came, and there were 6,998 who were unable to read. 
Of the Scandinavians there were 47,500 who came, and only 475 who were unable to 
read. Of the Scotch there were 17,274 who came, and of the illiterates there were 
only 140; while of the Syrians there were 5,216 who came, and of that number there 
were 2,870 who were unable to read. 


49090—10-25 



386 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that when we can contrast the north Italian with the 
south Italian we find only one cause for the difference. They have the same King, 
the same Parliament, the same laws; and yet the man north of the mountains is of the 
Caucasian, the white race, and the other is of the mixed race. I talked down there 
with Mr. Rossi, who was the commissioner of emigration of Italy, or one of them, and 
I said to him: “Mr. Rossi, what is the reason of the difference in the illiteracy of the 
south Italian and of the north Italian?” He said: “It is simply a result of the differ¬ 
ence in color.” The Greeks are the same way; the Syrians are the same way, mixed 
up with the Arabians and the people of African and western Asiatic countries, until 
they are not our kind of people; and they are not the kind of people from which those 
who settled this country sprang. 

Look at the difference—and it is significant—in the way they have been coming 
in for quite a number of years. Up until about 1882 nearly all of those that came 
were from the most desirable people of northwestern Europe. About that time there 
began to be a great influx of people from the Mediterranean Sea countries, and that 
continued; and'in 1890 and 1891 and 1892 it increased so greatly that the restrictive 
law that we have was demanded by the people of the country as a necessity. I under¬ 
take to say, Mr. Chairman, that if only the people who were the ancestors of ourselves, 
and of the gentlemen around this table who honor me with their attention, had con¬ 
tinued to come, there never would have been any necessity for, and there never would 
to-day have been upon the statute books of the country, the restriction in regard to 
contract labor and in regard to assisted immigration that there is. Why was it brought 
about? Because of the recognized necessity as these undesirable people increased in 
numbers, of having some kind of a restriction. It was demanded not only, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, by the labor unions of the country, but it was demanded by the civilization of 
America, that there should be some kind of limit and some kind of restriction; and 
and this was the restriction that was hit upon. And I believe that if the great influx 
of these people could be gotten rid of in the course of a few years those restrictions 
would be broken down, and America would say to the northwestern European, as it 
said before: “You come along. Our doors are open.” They would not be cut out 
by the educational test, as I have shown to you from this reading, scarcely at all. W T e 
would continue to get them. And yet of the south Italians more than 50 per cent 
would be cut out, while of their north Italian brothers but 10 per cent would go. Of 
the Greeks about forty-odd per cent would be cut out; and yet of the Bohemians, 
farther north of them, only 2 per cent would go. Of the Syrians, from 40 to 50 per 
cent, perhaps, would be cut out; and yet of the Scandinavians only about 2 per cent 
would be excluded, and of the Irish about a like number. 

It seems to me that this is the way to increase the desirable immigration, and I 
think that we can plant ourselves upon that conservative position and say that instead 
of being in favor of restricting the right kind of immigration—that which helped to 
build up and develop America—we are in favor of it, and this is the way to increase 
it. I believe that we can go before our fellow-countrymen and show to them that 
condition. 

There is another thing about the south Italian; he herds in the cities and towns over 
there. He does not live in the country. He does not live out on the farms. Even 
those that do farm work live in their villages and work out from their farms. Then, 
what is more natural for him when he comes to America than to herd in the great cities 
of the country, where he finds his own people? As was stated by Mr. Rothermel, I 
believe, the other day, they are clannish people; everybody knows that that is true 
so far as the Sicilian and the south Italian people are concerned. They go among their 
own people when they come to America and continue to congest in these crowded 
cities of the Northeast and of the Middle West, until, Mr. Chairman, they are breeding 
much of the crime there, so that they have had in New York to establish a special 
detective bureau for the purpose of arresting the Italian criminals, and Mr. Joe Petro- 
sini is the chief of that bureau, himself an Italian, I believe. 

I want to read you now what Mr. Caughy—referred to the other day in such high 
terms by one Mr. Bennett—the American consul at Messina, has said of the south 
Italian. Mr. Bennett spoke of him in his statement a few days ago in high terms 
and referred to the fact that he had been for fourteen years an American consul in that 
country. Let me see if my views in this regard are not reenforced by the statements 
of that American consul, who has been on the ground for fourteen years 

In a letter written in May, 1906, by Mr. Caughy to Mr. White, the American ambas¬ 
sador at Rome, this is what he says: 

“After nearly thirteen years’ residence in Sicily, during which period I have 
tried to study the emigration question in all its phases, I have arrived at the con¬ 
clusion that both Italy and America would benefit by its restriction; the fields of 
the former that now lie fallow for lack of labor to cultivate them would become pro- 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


387 


ductive, and the prisons and reformatories of the latter would not be overcrowded 
by a class of foreigners whose treacherous characteristics are such that a special arm 
of the detective service had to be created to keep them in check.” 

That is true. That is the special branch of the service that I referred to that exists 
in New York. 

As an evidence of their fighting characteristics, I want to call attention to this 
fact: I believe the chairman of this committee was present when we boarded one of 
the ships, I think, sailing from Naples. The steamship companies generally pre¬ 
pared for us when they knew we were coming, but sometimes they would “slip up,” 
and would not have all their preparations made; and on the deck of this ship we 
saw a large basket of knives. You were present, I believe/ Mr. Chairman, at that 
time. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Burnett. I think it was the chairman who asked, “What are these knives all 
doing here? ” The answer was, “Those are knives taken away from the Italians that 
are going to take passage in the steerage.” Mr. Howell, I believe, asked, “Why is 
that?” “Well,” he answered, “it would never do to allow those Italians to go across 
in the steerage with all those knives, because they would cut and carve each other 
up on the way.” 

That, gentlemen, is the class of people that we are objecting to. We say we are 
encouraging your people, my brother, to Mr. Kiistermann, and we are encouraging 
your people [referring to members of the committee] by shutting off this influx of 
these other people; and that is one of the purposes that I have in view in contending 
for that kind of a test. 

If they were all of the desirable nationalities, if they were all of the same class of 
people as the ancestors of these gentlemen, I do not believe there is a man that would 
raise his voice against them. But we do believe that our civilization is endangered. 
It is not simply a question of the dollar mark, Mr. Chairman. Cut yourself loose 
from that and look into other considerations that your children and mine will have 
to face hereafter; and it is one of the most serious (and in fact probably the most 
serious) propositions that there is in it. Here is a man who for thirteen years, when 
he wrote this—and he reaffirmed it last summer, as you know in talking with us there 
in Naples—a man who has been down for fourteen years among those people- 

Mr. O’Connell. Mr. Burnett—pardon me—is it fair for him to criticise the situa¬ 
tion in America if he has been over there thirteen years? That just occurs to me. 

Mr. Burnett. He is criticising the situation over there. 

Mr. O’Connell. But he is talking about the way they go into prisons here.. What 
right has he to talk about the situation in New England? 

Mr. Burnett. That is a matter of common knowledge. Why, Mr. Joe Petrosini, 
in an interview that I have right here with me, shows that to-day 132 of them are 
doing time in Sing Sing prison on account of the “Black Hand,” and you can not 
pick up a newspaper, Mr. Chairman, without seeing an account of these “Black 
Hand” atrocities in Pittsburg or Chicago or New York or some other of the great 
cities. 

Mr. O’Connell. Did not that apply back in the days when the Irish came here 
in such great numbers? Did they not have the “ Molly Maguires” and other societies 
that excited just the same feeling that you have been speaking of? 

Mr. Burnett. W T hy, for a little while; but that was not true except in some locali¬ 
ties, and now it is everywhere where the south Italian lives in large numbers. I 
noticed just the other day that in Bessemer, near Birmingham, Ala., where they 
have a “Black Hand” organization, they had demanded of an Italian citizen who 
had made some money that he should put $8,000 at a certain place, by a certain 
tree, or else his life would be forfeited, and he said, “ I know that they will kill me 
unless I do.” Those things occurred for a while in the early demoralized condition 
of the country. The “Molly Maguires” were off here in Pennsylvania, and there 
was a demoralized country there at the time; but the “ Black Hand” exists in cities, 
such as New York and Chicago and Birmingham and New Orleans, and wherever a 
large number of Italians have assembled together, without regard to whether it is a 
civilized community or a community that is disrupted. 

Mr. Hayes. Excuse me. My friend over here [Mr. O’Connell] would not claim 
for a moment that the doings of the “Molly Maguires” were characteristic of the 
Irish race. 

Mr. O’Connell. No; and for the same reason I do not admit that this is charac¬ 
teristic of the Italian race. 

Mr. Burnett. It is of a very large per cent of it. 

Mr. O’Connell. I claim that it is something of the same kind, and that it will 
and must pass away. 


388 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. Well, Mr. Chairman, it was characteristic of them for centuries back 
yonder. You were not with us, I believe, in the trip to Sicily; but down there we 
had read and heard of the acts of the brigands of southern Italy and of Sicily, and 
we asked them, “Where are your brigands now?” They said, “They have all gone 
to America.” While it is true that many of the leaders are of the more educated 
class, yet the very clannishness of those people, Mr. Chairman, is such that they 
hide their criminals and are afraid to open their mouths and give them up to the 
police courts of the country. 

Let me read on now from this man, because he is talking about that country, and 
is speaking of conditions over here that he has read of and heard of, and that we know 
to be true: 

“ It is said that the emigrant from upper Italy is sober, industrious, and makes a 
good citizen. I fear that the same can not be said of the one from Sicily or Calabria.” 

Mr. Bennet made an automobile trip through Calabria, and gave us some valuable 
information; but here is a man who is just across the little channel that separates 
Sicily from Calabria, and who knows the people over there, and he says that the 
same that is said of the north Italians can not be said of the people of Sicily and 
Calabria, the southern Italians. 

“The money he earns never sees the light of day after it finds its way to repose 
between the filthy linings of his leather wallet. His living expenses are about 40 
cents a day, and the hogs in an American farmer’s pen are more cleanly in their sur¬ 
roundings and habits than are he and his dozen associates, who huddle together in 
one room and exist like animals, not human beings.” 

And we found that this was true in that deserted village that Mr. Bennet spoke of 
the other day, a little way out from Messina. We found there in some dirty huts the 
people, the goats, the chickens, and the children all huddled together in one room, 
and the fleas working by the millions. 

“When the wallet is well swollen, he puts the contents in a registered letter and 
sends it to his relatives here, who change it into Italian currency and deposit it in 
the post-office bank. The money changer pays about 5.05 lire, and for that reason a 
person in need of American money can always buy $2,000 or $3,000 in bank notes for 
from 5.10 to 5.12 lire, while the price in New York would be 5.18 lire. Sometimes 
instead of sending it he brings it himself. In that case he appears upon the scene 
with a flashy suit, a top hat, a filled chain, and a brass watch and struts among his 
former associates—a second Gulliver, a giant among pygmies.” 

Mr. Kustermann. That is, when he goes back over there you see what American 
civilization has done for the man. 

Mr. Burnett. Yes, sir; it has furnished him with a gilded chain and all those other 
things. 

Mr. O’Connell. Pardon me, Mr. Burnett, who is this man that writes this? 

Mr. Burnett. This is Mr. Caughey, an American consul—and, by the way, he was 
appointed by Mr. Cleveland, of whom, I believe, the East is very fond. 

Mr. O’Connell. Not all of us. 

Mr. Burnett. That is so; we reciprocate on that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. O’Connell. I guess he indicates that he is one of the same class. 

Mr. Burnett. He has been kept there, at least, Mr. Chairman, during every admin¬ 
istration since the administration of Mr. Cleveland, so my Republican brethren can 
not take much solace from the fact that he was appointed by a Democrat. He has 
been so good that they have never seen fit to remove him. 

The Chairman. I met him while we were there, and he seemed like a very sensible 
kind of man. 

Mr. Burnett. Very sensible indeed, and a fine old gentleman, too. [Reading:] 

“ In a few weeks he returns, having induced some of his friends to accompany him. 
Immigrants of other nationalities, even the Polish Jews, spend their money where 
they make it, but the Sicilian and the Calabrese never. The only persons to whom 
their advent is a benefit are those who employ them at a cheaper figure than they 
would have to pay for American labor.” 

And, Mr. Chairman, that really seems to me to be a very fine argument, and the 
only argument, in favor of their coming. If you will read Mr. Bennet’s report, you 
will find that that is his view of the Syrians. I never visited Syria; I speak especially 
of the south Italians, because I saw them. But the Syrian is worse, possibly, than 
the south Italian, according to the statements that Mr. Bennet makes, which I have 
no doubt** 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


389 


“To at least check the constant rush of those people to our shores”— 

This is what he advises— 

“I see but one remedy—the insertion of the illiteracy clause in the immigration law. 
This would oblige about 85 per cent of the class to devote their attention to the develop¬ 
ing of the industries of their own country, which sadly needs the aid that we are only 
too glad to dispense with. 

“I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

“Charles M. Caughy, 

“American Consul 

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Burnett, pardon me. We have in Kentucky a great many 
people that we call Syrians. I do not know whether I am correct about the term. 
They go through the country, and carry their packs with them. 

Mr. Burnett. They are nearly all peddlers; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kustermann. They are Jews. 

Mr. Edwards. No; they are called Syrians. 

Mr. Burnett. No, no; they are not Jews. It is a slander upon the Jewish people—> 
I do not mean personally, of course; I mean the general opinion that the Syrians are 
Jews. 

Mr. Edwards. They do not stay long enough to pay any taxes or become citizens. 

Mr. Burnett. No; they are migratory people. 

Mr. Edwards. I never knew one of them to work a day in my life. 

Mr. O’Connell. There are a great many of those that are what they call Armenians. 

Mr. Burnett. “Armenia” is a general term for that whole country down there. 
There are many Jewish people down there; but the Syrians themselves are not Jews. 
And I want to say right here that I have no religious feeling, gentlemen, in regard to 
this—no sectarian feeling—and to show that I have not I will state that only two years 
ago I appointed a young Jew in my own town to the Naval Academy, and when he 
would not accept the appointment I appointed a young German from a neighboring 
county, each of them in my own district. I call attention to that for the purpose ot 
showing you and impressing upon you the fact that there is no feeling on my part 
against any nationality, Mr. Chairman, when they are good people and help to make 
good American citizens and build up our country. But my feeling—and it is not a 
feeling of hatred or animosity—grows out of the fact that almost every report that we 
get from the Northeast and the crowded cities of the East (and it is beginning to be so 
in Jhe West) shows the indignities that are being perpetrated and the atrocities and 
the crimes that are being committed by this element, and even in my own section of 
the country. I say that it is time for us to call a halt; and I believe this is the con¬ 
servative way of doing it. I am not here to say that every man is an undesirable 
citizen simply because he can not read and write. I do not believe that. But the 
educational test will reach those whom experience has shown to us to be, more than 
the people of any other nationality, undesirable citizens when they get here; and that 
is why I favor it. 

We could not say, in terms, without causing trouble with European countries, that 
no persons from south Italy could come in, that no persons from Greece could come in, 
that no persons from Syria could come in, because that would involve us in complica¬ 
tions that we do not want. But here is a way, Mr. Chairman, by which, while striking 
down hardly any of the good people of Europe, we can weed out those that are going 
to give trouble, and are already giving trouble, to our country. 

Suppose there should be war in America. Do you believe that a single one of those 
Sicilians or south Italians or Greeks or Syrians would take up arms in defense of our 
flag? And yet the proof shows that when it came to the people of your country, and 
your country, and your country [addressing members of the committee] they were 
as valiant American soldiers as they were good American citizens. I am not here 
with any feeling of unkindness toward these people on account of their nationality. 
I say, let the good foreigner come; and he has come. One of as good counties as any 
in my district is a county first settled by a German colony. They are my friends, 
and they know my position on this question, Mr. Chairman, because I sent to them 
copies of the speech that I had the honor of making two years ago on the floor of this 
House, and in public I made the same statements that I have made here to-day. 
This bill is in the interest of getting more of the good immigrants. 

I will not tire this committee, Mr. Chairman, with reading from that speech, showing 
the difference and drawing the distinction between the numbers that came from these 
countries before the people from the Mediterranean countries began to come in such 
large numbers. 

Mr. Hayes. I would like to hear it. We have lots of time. 


390 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. All right. I wanted to show you that, because I think I have dem¬ 
onstrated to you gentlemen that it is with no feeling of sectarianism or sectionalism, 
or of animosity toward any people, that I am making this argument before this com¬ 
mittee. I believe that time will develop the fact that our brethren here among these 
people, who we all say are the desirable part of the country, will rally to this opinion, 
for the purpose of protecting the people of their own nationality and getting more of 
them to come. 

Take, for instance, the falling off shown on pages 59 and 60 of Mr. Sargent’s report 
on immigration to America from northwestern Europe. I will read from a speech here 
that I made before the Birmingham (Ala.) Board of Trade; and when I got through 
one of the business Germans of that city, who was my friend, came and shook my 
hand, and said, “You are right on this proposition.” 

About the time of the change that Commissioner Sargent speaks of—in 1882—there 
was a rapid shifting of the sources of immigration from western to eastern and southern 
Europe. Note the contrast (I will only use round numbers): In 1882 the total 
immigration to this country from all Europe and Turkey in Asia was 647,000. In 
1905 it was 1,024,000. In 1907—I mean up to the end of the fiscal year, June 30—it 
was 1,285,349. 

Of those admitted in 1882 there were 563,000 from the countries of western Europe. 
There were only 83,637 that year from southern and eastern Europe and Turkey in 
Asia. Note the difference—563,000 from the countries of northern and western 
Europe, and from the countries of eastern and southern Europe there were only 
83,637. 

Of the total immigration, 87 per cent was from northwestern Europe, and only 13 
per cent from southern and eastern Europe. In 1905 there were only 216,000 from 
these countries of northwestern Europe, and 809,000 from the same countries of eastern 
and southern Europe. That is, of the total immigration 21.7 per cent was from north¬ 
western Europe, and 78.9 per cent from eastern and southern Europe. 

I will repeat those percentages in order to call them to your attention. In 1905 
the immigration from northwestern Europe was only 21 pei cent, and that from eastern 
and southern Europe was 78.9 per cent. 

Mr. Kustermann. Of the illiterates? 

Mr. Burnett. No, sir; of the whole. 

To emphasize the danger of this condition, I will contrast the immigration of a few 
of the countries during those two years. From Great Britain in 1882 there came 
179,400. In 1905, when the total immigration had nearly doubled, it had fallen from 
179,400 to 102,200. In 1882 it was nearly 28 per cent of the total immigration. In 1905 
it was not quite 10 per cent. In 1882 Germany sent us 250,000; in 1905, only 37,500. 
In 1882 Germany sent us over 38 per cent of the entire immigration; in 1905 it sent less 
than 4 per cent. 

Gentlemen, those figures are significant, and they must mean something. 

Mr. O’Connell. This occurred to me, Mr. Burnett—I do not want to interrupt 
your remarks- 

Mr. Burnett. That is all right, Mr. O’Connell, because I believe, as I want to say 
here, that everyone of us wants to reach the best interests of our common country. 

Mr. O’Connell. To be sure. This has occurred to me: We have drained north¬ 
western Europe, to my mind, as one of the causes of the falling off. Are we not 
draining southeastern Europe, and are we not going to meet in a year or two years 
the exact falling off that we now have from the north and west? 

Mr. Burnett. Unfortunately that is not the case. There was a meeting down there 
while we were at Naples; and a gentleman of Calabria spoke, and he said: “While 
it is true that some of the villages are beiiig depopulated, yet the Italians”—and it is 
the same with the Greeks and the Syrians—“are so prolific that they are coming in 
and filling up those places almost as fast as they are being taken out.” 

Mr. Sabath. There is no race suicide down there. 

Mr. Burnett. No, sir, Mr. Sabath; there is no race suicide there—none at all. 
In other words, they come in triplets and quadruplets and in every other way. 

Mr. Kustermann. Speaking of race suicide, I would like to say that I recently 
observed a statement by one of those gentlemen who are in favor of the restriction of 
immigration, in which he said that the reason we have so few people raised in this 
country to-day is because the mothers fear the competition that their children will 
encounter on the part of these hated immigrants. Now, such a man as that that makes 
such a.statement ought not to be allowed to run around loose. 

Mr. O’Connell. That is right. 

Mr. Burnett. I have not made any such statement as that, you know. I saw the 
statement; but here is what the statement was based on, Mr. Chairman: As a great 
German has said, America is becoming the spittoon of Europe, and this writer said 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


391 


that when the fathers and mothers reflected upon the fact that their children were 
to be laborers in competition with the laborers of southern and southeastern Europe 
they believed that it was better not to bring the children into the world than to have 
that kind of competition. I saw the same statement; it was from some minister, and 
that was the substance of what he said. 

A little further, now, in regard to that matter. I will not repeat in regard to Ger¬ 
many. In 1882 Sweden sent us 64,600. Now, notice.this—in 1882 Sweden sent us 
64,600. Those Scandinavians have helped to build up the Northwest to a great 
extent, and I wish we had thousands and thousands of them in the South; I would 
be glad to see them. They sent us 64,600 in 1882, and in 1905, 23,300. In 1882 
Sweden alone sent 10 per cent of the immigration, and in 1905 a little over 2 per cent. 
And that is the case, although, as I have told you, the immigration meantime has 
doubled. 

In 1882 Italy sent 32,000; in 1905, 273,000. In 1882 it sent 5 per cent of the total; 
in 1905 it sent nearly 27 per cent. In 1882 Autria-Hungary sent 29,150; in 1905 it 
sent 265,000. In 1882 it sent 4.5 per cent; in 1905 it sent 26 per cent. In 1882 Russia 
sent 21,600; in 1905, 215,600. In 1882 Russia sent 3.3 per cent, in 1905, 21 per cent. 

This, gentlemen, gives you a comparison of the emigration from the three principal 
countries of northwestern Europe with the emigration from the three principal coun¬ 
tries of eastern and southern Europe. Within twenty-five years the emigration from 
northwestern Europe has fallen from 563,000 to 216,000, while that of eastern and 
southern Europe has increased from 83,600 to 80S,800. 

With regard to the German law, gentlemen, Germany does not look with favor upon 
these people. My friend, Mr. O’Connell, the other day made some reference in his 
speech in the House—a very able one -to the way that they were regarded and re¬ 
ceived over there; and yet here is an illustration from some of the Prussian laws in 
regard to that matter. It says: 

“Tentative regulations were passed on May 6, 1892, and May 27,1893; but the first 
important rule was proclaimed in a circular of the Prussian minister of the interior 
on October 8, 1893. It read: 

‘“Russian emigrants are prohibited from entering the Prussian monarchy unless 
they possess a lawful passport, a ticket to America, and a sufficient sum of money to 
secure their transportation to their destination in America. Persons over 10 years 
of age must show 400 marks, younger persons 100 marks. The persons, however, 
who have steamship tickets for one of the German lines are not required to produce 
any cash. 

Mr. Howell and I saw and talked with one of the steamship men at Breslau, and 
he told us that not more than a year or two before we were there the chief of police 
was ordered to go around and make people who had their little stands—fruit stands 
and other stands—leave and go back to their own country, because Germany was not 
encouraging an influx of that kind of immigration. Now, gentlemen, if our friends 
over there who are so near to them are willing to receive them during the harvest 
time, but as soon p,s the harvest time is over have them go back to their countries, 
then ought we, who are so much farther away and can not get them back so easily when 
they become undesirable or keep them out when they are undesirable, to allow them 
to come in such great numbers upon our people? Is it right for us to do that when 
those who are there and know them best are themselves afraid of many of them and 
restrict their ingress into their country? 

Mr. Kustermann. That applies only to Russians, does it not? 

Mr. Burnett. That particular rule does. 

Mr. Kustermann. Let me tell you that there are other considerations that keep 
them out. You know that Germany tries to Germanize Holland, and they do not 
want the Russians to come in there. I know that Bismarck was very much opposed 
to the Russian immigration, because he did not want any more of the same class of 
people that there are in Poland inciting those people against the German Government. 
It is merely a political matter. 

Mr. Sabath. And if you will pardon me, if I am not mistaken—I may not be very 
well posted—I think it was a measure virtually directed against the Jew of Russia. 
It was a special law that Germany passed or proclaimed at that time, and which, if I 
am not mistaken, it has since that time retracted, because of the cry that has been 
raised by the people all through the world of the unfairness of that proclamation or 
law. That has forced Germany to retract or rescind that law. If you remember, 
the entire world was in arms at that time against the action of the Germans. 

Mr. Burnett. The information that I got, Mr. Chairman, was that they regarded 
the real Russian as a worse citizen than the Jew. 

Mr. Hayes. I should say, judging by the pictures Mr. Bennet displayed to us a 
week or two ago, that they were decidedly worse. 


392 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. Yes, sir; they are worse. Take the Cossacks over there, the soldiers 
that met us at the border. At one place our passports went; at another place we were 
met by a soldier who shook his head when the passports were displayed, and a Ger¬ 
man gentleman who was along with us said: “They are all subject to bribery; try 
them with a kopec.” Some gentleman in the crowd, not a commissioner, however, 
showed a kopeck to the soldier, and he looked around toward the guardhouse, and 
it was evident that he thought someone saw him from the guardhouse; so he shook 
his head again. 

I believe that the best people, the Germans themselves and the people that are bor¬ 
dering upon that country, will tell you that of all the Russians the best people among 
them are the Jews; and I believe that the Russian Jew is the best man that comes to 
America from Russia—that he is a better man than the real Russian. Of course, the 
Jews are to some extent the malcontents of that country on account of the oppressions 
they have suffered. But, Mr. Chairman, the Russian himself is a malcontent when¬ 
ever it is to his interest to be, and a more dangerous malcontent than is the Jew. 

Mr. O’Connell. In the figures that you read earlier in your remarks, Mr. Burnett, 
I believe the percentage of illiteracy from Russia is very great? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. O’Connell. Did that include the Russian Jew? 

Mr. Burnett. To some extent; but not so much the Russian Jew as the real Rus¬ 
sian, as I understand. 

Mr. Bennet. They are a little less than 25 per cent. 

Mr. Burnett. Yes, sir. A great many of them have the Yiddish dialect, and a 
great many of them can read that Yiddish dialect. In the bill that we proposed at 
the last session the words “the English language or any other language or dialect” 
were included, and, as I recollect it, that was suggested mainly for the purpose of 
letting in those very people that could read the Yiddish dialect. I think, as Mr. 
Bennet has said, that less than 25 per cent, perhaps, of the Russian Jews are unable to 
read at least their Yiddish. Most of them can read Yiddish, if nothing else. 

Mr. Kustermann. Excuse me, but I never heard of a dialect being read. 

Mr. Burnett. But that is a dialect over there. 

Mr. Kustermann. I never heard of a dialect being read. 

Mr. Burnett. It hardly rises to the dignity of a language, as I understand, although 
I believe there are three or four millions of those people. Mr. Sabath, perhaps, is 
more familiar with that matter than any of us. I believe he comes from a section 
where Yiddish is spoken to some extent. 

Mr. Sabath. I am not especially familiar with it, but I am fairly well acquainted 
with it. 

Mr. Bennet. I know some Yiddish myself. 

Mr. Sabath. I probably know* more of it than anybody here. 

Mr. Bennet. The distinction, of course, is that they can not call it a language 
because it is not the speech of the country; but they can not. call it a gibberish either, 
because they w r rite literature in it, poetry, and so on. So you have got to call it a 
dialect. 

Mr. Sabath. It is Hebrew. 

Mr. Burnett. No; it is not Hebrew. 

Mr. Hayes. They use Hebrew signs. 

Mr. Sabath. Yes; but the language they use is what they term Yiddish. 

Mr. Bennet. It is a portion of the German language and a portion of the Russian 
language mixed up. 

Mr. Burnett. A kind of a combination? 

Mr. Sabath. Yes. 

Mr. Burnett. My recollection is that Senator Lodge, who is a ripe scholar and has 
investigated it, expressed to me the opinion that it w^as perhaps sixteenth-century 
German. 

Mr. Bennet. It is old German that they were forced to learn, with some words in 
Hebrew. For instance, the word “magillah,” I think, is a Hebrew word. The 
word “gonoph,” I think, is a Hebrew word. The word “shool” is Hebrew, and the 
word “smoosch” is German, and so on. 

Mr. Burnett. Yes; it is called a dialect. It is not called a language because it is 
not the language of the nation, as Mr. Bennet has said. 

Mr. Gardner. Is it not called a jargon? 

Mr. Bennet. Yes; it is called a jargon. 

Mr. Burnett. That is almost too undignified a term, in view of the number of 
people that speak that dialect. 

Mr. Gardner. Mr. Bijur called it a jargon, and Mr. Behar called it a jargon. 

Mr. Bennet. If you strike a Jewish community and ask them if they talk the jargon 
they are not insulted. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BTLLS. 


393 


Mr. Sabath. That is true. 

Mr. Burnett. On the question of the assimilation, especially the people of southern 
and eastern Europe, I have different ideas from what some of my friends have. 

W ith the vast resources, varied climate, diversified industries, and products of 
America, I confess that we have wonderful means of assimilation. But “can the 
Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” 

As I have previously stated, the people against whom my principal objection is 
aimed are of a different race and of a different color from those of America and of 
northwestern Europe, and in my judgment they can never be perfectly assimilated. 
They may be amalgamated. History shows that wherever a superior race has been 
amalgamated with an inferior the superior has been pulled down and the inferior not 
lifted up. 

We have evidence of this in some of the very people about whom I have spoken. 
Who can detect the courage, the intelligence, or the honor of the ancient Greek in the 
people who now dwell amid the ruins of that once splendid empire? Who can detect 
the culture and learning of the ancient Phoenician in the dirty Syrian of to-day? 
Who can see a trace of Caesar’s triumphant legions among the beggars of Naples as they 
wallow to-day in filth and grime? 

Why is it that the Jew has maintained his racial distinctiveness throughout the 
centuries? Why is it that, no matter where he is thrown, he is generally intelligent 
and industrious? It is because he has always refused to amalgamate with his in¬ 
feriors. 

We have another illustration of the impossibility of assimilation between a superior 
and an inferior race in the negro of our country. To-day, with the benefits of freedom 
and of educational advantages before him, he is morally worse depraved than he was 
on the day the shackles of slavery were stricken from his limbs. And wherever there 
has been miscegenation the fruits have been disastrous to both races. 

But, Mr. Chairman, if we concede the possibility of assimilation between the Aryan 
and the Iberic blood, the very increase in numbers of the inferior race makes assimi¬ 
lation harder and more remote. While they were few, and that few was swallowed up 
by the Caucasian around them, they were more apt to take to the ways of our people. 
But as they have grown more numerous and have banded together, forming “Little 
Italys,” their own manners and customs and habits become more and more firmly fixed 
upon them. There are none of us but who deprecate the horrors of the Black Hand, 
and yet is there anyone who believes that these Black Hand atrocities would continue 
were there fewer of their own people to furnish hiding places for their criminals. 

Within the past few months many of those who came from southern Europe have 
been returning. Many more are going back than are coming over. Why is this? It is 
because they have no love for America; because they have no love for our institutions; 
because they came to seek American gold, and not American liberty; because they 
have not acquired a home or erected a family hearthstone. It is because American 
prosperity lured them to our shores, and now American adversity is driving them away. 

Gentlemen, is that the class of citizenship we desire? Are those the kind of people 
that you can hope to assimilate? If one little monetary flurry will drive these people 
from us, can we feel that they could be relied on to rally round the American flag should 
the horrors of war ever beset us? When they go, they carry all their belongings with 
them, and thus help to drain our land of the money which we need to bring us better 
times, and those who can not get away increase and aggravate the army of our unem¬ 
ployed . 

Do these people soon make desirable citizens? The Liberal Immigration League 
does not think so That league openly favors a law making their probation longer 
before they can acquire the rights of naturalized citizens. 

My friend, Mr. Bennet, who is one of the ablest foes of the illiteracy test for immi¬ 
grants in Congress, does not think so, because in the last Congress he was one of the 
most earnest advocates of the educational test for naturalization that we had among us. 
I think that is correct. 

Mr. Bennet. Yes; that is correct. 

Mr. Kustermann. But you know he has been in Italy since. 

Mr. Bennet. I am still in favor of a rigid naturalization. 

Mr. Burnett. He helped to draft a bill in which we have an educational clause for 
naturalization. Immigrants must be able to read and write English was the text of the 
bill. 

Mr. Bennet. Yes; to read and write English. 

Mr. Burnett. I believe it is an unfortunate condition for a republican government 
to have large numbers of male inhabitants who can not participate in its electorate, at 
least. We have that unfortunate condition in the South, but neither you nor I, nor 
this generation, is responsible for that condition. 


394 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


I have not discussed this question in relation to its effect on labor; but, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, I feel that to the workingman of America something is due. It is not capital 
alone which has made our country blossom as the rose. In fact, to my mind, capital 
has had a very small part in it. The honor for the prosperous conditions is mainly 
due to the intelligence, the industry, and the perseverence of the American working¬ 
man. Without him capital would be powerless and the hand of wealth would be par¬ 
alyzed. He prostrated the forests and turned the wilderness into fallow ground. He 
went to the bowels of the earth and brought forth the treasures that God had hidden 
there. 

It is useless to say that the American, the Irishman, or the German, or the Scotch¬ 
man would not do this again. He has done it, and wherever the wages are adequate 
he will do it again. Then, gentlemen, is it fair to displace him with the pauper laborer 
of Europe who comes as a strike breaker or to depress the price of honest toil? 

A partnership between capital and labor has brought about the splendid results 
that we see on every side. The laborer is the weaker partner in the protection of him* 
self, and yet he is the stronger in the reward he brings to the whole people. Then, is 
that partner treated justly when capital introduces a third partner to increase its 
profits, and at the same time reduces the profits of the one who brings the gains to the 
firm? 

This, gentlemen, is no empty vaporing of a demagogue, but is an appeal for simple 
justice for those who toil. Who is asking for the low-priced, half-starved laborer from 
other lands? It is not the farmer. Every important farmers’ association that has met 
for years has decried it. 

The Farmers’ Union of the South, an organization of more than 3,000,000 farmers, at 
the recent meeting in Memphis, I believe it was, or at Little Rock, unanimously 
passed a resolution along the line of opposition to pauper labor and immigration from 
the southern portions of Europe.* The Cotton Growers’ Association, headed by Mr. 
Harvey Jordan, takes exactly the same position, and but a few weeks ago the legisla¬ 
ture of Virginia unanimously, as I understand, passed a resolution taking the same 
ground. The great national farmers’ convention that met a year or two ago in Rich¬ 
mond, composed of farmers not only from the South, but from the West and from the 
East, passed resolutions to the same effect. The labor unions, many of them, and the 
Federation of Labor have done the same. The Junior Order of American Mechanics 
have uniformly and universally opposed this influx of labor from southern and eastern 
Europe. 

In my judgment those who are most favoring it are the steamship companies, who 
in many particulars are the most lawless people who come to our country; at least in a 
great many respects. They do it, of course, for the fees they receive for the passage 
of the immigrants. The railroad companies, who receive their compensation for their 
distribution, and the great industrial plants of the country, who want to hold them as 
strike breakers, or hold them as low, cheap labor, favor this low-priced labor. 

I want to say that in my section of Alabama where these people were—in reiteration 
of a remark I made a moment ago—as soon as the hard times began to come and the 
industries began to close down, these people left, those that could get away, and those 
that either had not accumulated enough to get away or had already sent it back to 
their own country are down there to-day as public charges on the charity of the people 
of our neighborhoods. I do not mean all, but many of them. Now when good times 
return, these birds of passage will all flock back again. Thousands of the steamship 
runners will scatter all over Europe, as we found on our visit there. Diseases are 
propagated, and the asylums are filled by many of these people in many communities. 

Here I have a report, page 104, the annual report of the Commissioner of Immigra¬ 
tion for 1905, in which he gives a chart and says it is shown by this chart that there are 
349,885 inmates of these institutions, 252,811 of whom are native born and 97,074 for¬ 
eign born. Of the foreign born, 39,646 are still aliens and 57,428 have become nat¬ 
uralized. Thus 11 per cent of the total number of inmates of these institutions are 
aliens, and 17 per cent are naturalized foreign born, making a total foreign born within 
the institutions 28 per cent, although of the total population of the United States but 
14 per cent. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that those are the points that I desired to discuss. Mr. 
Bennet’s argument and attitude on the naturalization bills have been so open and 
free that I was glad to refer to them. 

Mr. Bennet. I have always distinguished between the educational test for immi¬ 
grants and the educational test for naturalization, feeling in my own mind a clear dis¬ 
tinction betwen the tests which enable a man who has not had previous advantages 
to come into this country, and those which enable a man who has had the opportunity 
during five years to acquire the knowledge and fitness sufficient to be admitted to 
citizenship. My position on the floor was frankly and openly, as Mr. Burnett says, 
stated when the naturalization bill was up, and I do not necessarily believe a man is 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


395 


undesirable in the country because he does not know our language when he comes in, 
although I think he is better equipped for the duties of citizenship if he can read and 
write and speak our language, and 1 would vote that way any time on the floor. 

Mr. Burnett. That is very satisfactory. I am willing that that shall go into these 
remarks. 

Mr. Bennet. That is my position on the floor. 

Mr. Kustermann. Where did you get those statistics that you have referred to 
about the poorhouses? 

Mr. Burnett. From the report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration, Mr. 
Sargent. 

Mr. Kustermann. 1 do not find it in my own State that way. I know many names 
have gone into our statistics as foreign born that are not foreign born, although their 
fathers and grandfathers were. Just think of a man by the name of Kustermann going 
into a poorhouse. They would naturally rank him, no matter how long his ancestors 
were in this country, as foreign born. 

Mr. Burnett. It is unthinkable that a man of that name would be there. 

Mr. Kustermann. He might be, just as it is set down in those statistics. 

Mr. Burnett. I take it for granted that the officials have conducted the proper in¬ 
vestigations. 

Mr. Bennet. Those are official figures. 

Mr. Kustermann. How do they arrive at those figures? I myself have been at the 
head of an institution in my State, and I know how superficial those figures are. 

Mr. Burnett. There are mistakes in statistics in a good many particulars. 

Mr. Kustermann. The people in the South, I suppose, object to the immigrants 
from any point of Europe, because you have labor enough, anyway. You have the 
colored gentleman, who does your work. Do you throw the Polanders in with the 
others? 

Mr. Burnett. They are better than the Syrians. We do not object to, but encour¬ 
age emigrants from northern and northwestern Europe. 

In addition to those remarks I desire also to submit a brief state¬ 
ment on three of the important features of the Hayes bill: First, 
the educational test; second, the increased head tax; and third, 
the requirement that an immigrant shall have at least $25 on landing. 

An educational test, I think, is the most important of all these 
features. It is a law, and has been found to work well, in Natal, 
Cape Colony, and all the Australian countries. In the first place, it 
is the fairest way of restricting immigration that could be instituted. 
One of the reasons for that statement is that it is certain. I want to 
quote from an address of Mr. Prescott F. Hall. He sets out that 
feature as strongly as possibly can be, and I do not think I could 
improve on his language. Speaking of the educational test, he 

S8/YS- 

Mr. Sabath. Who is Mr. Hall ? 

Mr. Burnett. He is a leading attorney and writer in Boston, Mass., 
and is also secretary to the executive committee of the Immigration 
Restriction League. The argument he makes can not be contro¬ 
verted by any of the gentlemen on either side. He says: 

It must be a definite test, because one trouble with the ‘ ‘ public-charge ” clause of the 
present law, under which most exclusions now occur, is that it is so vague and elastic 
that it can be interpreted to suit the temper of any of the higher officials who may 
happen to be charged with the execution of the law. As I have elsewhere repeatedly 
shown, those persons who can not read in their own language are, in general, those who 
are also ignorant of a trade, who bring little money with them, who settle in the city 
slums, who have a low standard of living and little ambition to seek a better, and who 
do not assimilate rapidly or appreciate our institutions. It is not claimed that an 
illiteracy test is a test of moral character, but it would undoubtedly exclude a good 
many persons who now fill our prisons and almshouses and would lessen the burden 
upon our schools and machinery of justice. 

Mr. Sabath. You refer there to the criminality. I have here in my 
hand the report of the Census Bureau which shows- 

Mr. Burnett. What year ? 




396 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Sabath. 1904, the last one published, which shows that Mr. 
Hall’s statement is not exactly correct, because the criminal class of 
the immigrant is much smaller in proportion to the population than 
the native born, namely, the percentage of immigrants is 23 per cent, 
whereas the percentage of the prisoners is only 16 per cent. 

Mr. Burnett. You misunderstood the language that Mr. Hall used; 
he did not say the majority of them, but he says a good many persons. 
I think that every well-informed American at least will admit that of 
all the aliens coming to this country the south Italian, the Syrian, 
and the people of eastern Europe are the least desirable; and yet they 
are the ones who are coming in largest numbers. In that connection 
I want to read the last report of the Commissioner of Immigration, 
the report of 1909, on page 111. 

Mr. Sabath. Commissioner Keefe, Chief of the Bureau of Immi¬ 
gration ? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes. I want to say in that connection that Com¬ 
missioner Keefe is certainly entitled to a great deal of respect as to 
his opinions. He has been a man who has been closely affiliated 
with the labor organizations of the country, and has come in contact 
frequently with this very class of people. 

Mr. Sabath. His leadership has been disputed by Mr. Gompers; 
over a year ago Mr. Gompers did not agree with him on a great many 
questions. 

Mr. Hayes. On this one, of immigration, he agrees with him. 

Mr. Burnett. Yes; absolutely. He says: 

g^The peasants of the countries mentioned have for a number of years supplied a 
rich harvest to the promoter of immigration. The promoter is usually a steamship 
ticket agent, employed on a commission basis, or a professional money lender, or a 
combination of the two. His only interest is the wholly selfish one of gaining his 
commission and collecting his usury. He is employed by the steamship lines, large 
and small, without scruple, and to the enormous profit of such lines. The more 
aliens they bring over the more there are to be carried back if failure meets the tenta¬ 
tive immigrant and the more are likely to follow later if success is his lot. What¬ 
ever the income, it is a good commercial proposition for the steamship line. To 
say that the steamship lines are responsible, directly or indirectly, for this unnatural 
immigration is not the statement of a theory, but of a fact, and of a fact that some¬ 
times becomes, indeed, if it is not always, a crying shame. 

And, quoting from Inspector Gruenberg: 

He shows quite clearly that all of the steamship lines engaged in bringing aliens 
from Europe to this country have persistently and systematically violated the law, 
both in its letter and spirit, by making use of every possible means to encourage the 
peasants of Europe to purchase tickets over their lines to this country. They have 
issued circulars and advertisements, and made use of extensive correspondence, 
through their own agents in this country and in Europe, and of private correspond¬ 
ents, so ne of it spurious in character, to impress the peasants with the belief that 
employment at high wages could be promptly secured on landing in the United 
States. Some of them have joined hands with money lenders and other sharks for 
the purpose of exploiting the prospective passengers, providing them with passage 
under a credit system which amounted almost to robbery, and insuring themselves 
against loss by taking mortgages and joint notes. 

Mr. Sabath. Will you permit me right here to ask a question? 
Now, we have a law which prohibits steamship companies from 
doing this very thing—— 

Mr. Hayes. They are doing it all the time. 

Mr. Sabath. Why is it that the Commissioner of Immigration and 
his deputy, whose name you have given here, do not stop that abuse 
and prosecute the offenders ? 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


397 


Mr. Burnett. M e have no control of them on the other side, nor 
of their agents; we can only prevent their landing those who are 
thus induced to come, and the great trouble, no doubt, would be, 
in the administration of that—finding out what is going on on the 
other side. 

Mr. Hayes. Picking out the individual cases, that is the trouble; 
you can not make any wholesale investigation; you have to in¬ 
vestigate each individual case. 

Mr. Sabath. If we could obtain any evidence against the steam¬ 
ship 'companies guilty of this violation, could we not punish them 
in other ways ? 

Mr. Hayes. How can you if something happens outside of our 
jurisdiction ? 

Mr. Sabath. But we have jurisdiction over them to this extent, 
that we have the right to pass laws pertaining to the regulation of 
steerage passengers, and in that way we could enforce the law. 

Mr. Burnett. While we know these things go on on the other side, 
it would be difficult to find a specific case on which to base a prose¬ 
cution, even if the law permitted us to do it. 

Mr. Sabath. What evidence have they submitted to this com¬ 
mittee that these violations do take place ? 

Mr. Burnett. Here is the official report of Gruenberg, a man who 
went there and investigated it, spent several months in Europe in 
conducting a quiet, deep investigation for the Government, and Mr. 
Keefe, in his report, quotes from the report made by Mr. Gruenberg, 
as follows: 

The record and the exhibits are well worth reading, and, it is believed, are absolutely 
convincing that the steamship companies, in their eagerness to successfully com¬ 
pete with one another, have made no effort to control their agents and subagents, 
or to keep them within the limits of the United States immigration law, but have 
rather encouraged than discouraged their unlawful practices in inducing an arti¬ 
ficial immigration. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Black Hand does not compare with the 
steamship lines. The steamship lines that are coming to this coun¬ 
try are to-day doing more harm to the country than the Black Hand 
themselves are doing. They are worse, more lawless, than the Black 
Hand. 

I desire to show the percentage of the undesirable class of people 
from the last report (1909) of the Commissioner-General of Immigra¬ 
tion, from which I have just quoted. 

A large proportion of immigration during the past year, as for a number of years 
previously, has had its source in southern and eastern Europe. Countries of that 
section furnished about 67 per cent of the total immigration; Italy, 183,218, or over 
24 per cent; Austria-Hungary, 170,191, or about 23 per cent; Greece, 14,111, or nearly 
2 per cent; Turkey and the small principalities surrounding, 11,659, or about 1£ per 
cent; and Russia, 120,460, or about 16 per cent. 

This is not a natural, but a stimulated immigration, and as I have 
just called attention to, from the report of Mr. Gruenberg, stimulated 
by the lawless action of the steamship companies on the other side 
that we can hardly reach at all. 

Mr. Sabath. Isn’t there any possible way of reaching the steam¬ 
ship companies ? 

Mr. Burnett. The only way, the sure way, is to stop that class 
of immigration, in my judgment. 


4 


398 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Sabath. I am in favor of stopping the steamship companies 
from doing just what you claim they are guilty of—that ol stimulating 
immigration, but I am, of course, in favor of permitting all those 
who are fleeing from persecution and from the unbearable conditions 
in their own countries, to come to this country. 

Mr. Burnett. You do not think that the south Italian is fleeing 
from religious persecution, do you ? 

Mr. Sabath. Well, they come, they are fleeing from the existing 
conditions. 

Mr. Burnett. They generally bring their priests along with them. 

Mr. Sabath. Well, that is to their credit—it is not to their discredit, 
I am sure. 

Mr. Burnett. Well, I do not object to it; but it shows that they 
are not fleeing from any religious conditions that they object to. 

Mr. Sabath. No, but economical conditions/ 

Mr. Burnett. And the illiteracy or educational test would shut 
out a large percentage of that very class of stimulated immigration; 
and in the statement that I previously made before the committee, 
and that I have had leave to file as part of these remarks, I called 
attention to the percentage of the different localities and countries, 
while, on the other hand, the immigration that is really of the desir¬ 
able class, that from northwestern Europe, would scarcely be touched 
at all by the illiteracy test. 

Mr. Sabath. Well, we are not receiving a large percentage of 
that immigration from the northern states, because they need all 
the labor they can possibly obtain right at home. 

Mr. Burnett. And Mr. Keefe, in this very report, says that if 
we shut out the undesirable class we will get more of the good. The 
point being that if the steamships can not fill their steerage with 
illiterates they will bring literates. 

Mr. Sabath. I disagree with Mr. Keefe. 

Mr. Burnett. No doubt. 

Mr. Sabath. I know that Germany is more than anxious to receive 
all those that Mr. Keefe claims to be undesirable; they are clamoring 
for labor all the time in Germany. 

Mr. Burnett. In that connection I want to quote, on that very 
point, and on another, from the Commissioner of Immigration at 
New York. In his last annual report (1909) he says: 

Few people are bold enough to claim that we are in urgent need of any more immi¬ 
grants who will crowd into the congested districts of our large cities. And yet this 
is where a large percentage of our immigrants now go and stay. At a time when por¬ 
tions of the West are crying for out-of-door labor the congestion in New York City 
may be increasing at the rate of many thousands per mont^ 

Mr. Sabath. Then he should be in favor of the distribution law, 
and yet we find he is opposed to it. 

Mr. Burnett. No; not opposed to it. 

Mr. Sabath. Who, Mr. Keefe, the Commissioner-General of 
Immigration ? 

Mr. Burnett. No; he recommends the continuance of the dis¬ 
tribution bureau, as I understand it. 

Mr. Sabath. I have information that leads me to say that he is 
not in favor of the distribution bureau. 

Mr. Burnett. I want to state in that connection that I am op¬ 
posed to it. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


399 


Mr. Sabath. If his report is true, then he should be in favor of it; 
if the people in the country are clamoring for labor and can not 
obtain it why shouldn’t we assist in distributing immigration to the 
sections where they really do need labor ? 

Mr. Burnett. Because that class of people won’t work in agri¬ 
cultural sections, and if they need them they can not use them 
because they are of no account for farm labor. To distribute from 
the congested ports not only makes room for more to be brought in, 
but tends through the vacuum created to draw more in. I believe 
it was President Roosevelt who described distribution as a mere 
palliative. Any way, very few of our present-day immigrants are 
real farmers or want to till the soil. 

Mr. Sabath. You, and everyone else who makes that statement, 
are mistaken, because the majority of these people come from the 
rural districts and from the farms of Europe, and they are excellent 
agriculturists; and if you take the Western States, one by one, you 
will find that in the majority of those States the work is being done 
by the foreign element. 

Mr. Burnett. They live in the towns in their home countries and 
walk 3 or 4 miles into the country to work, which is absolutely im¬ 
practicable in this country. They do not live on the land they cul¬ 
tivate, but in congested centers. 

Mr. Sabath. Oh, no. 

Mr. O’Connell. Not impracticable in this country when you 
consider the fact that we have rapid transportation now between the 
city and the country. For instance, in Boston you can get away 
out into the country, where the farms are, in a very short time. 

Mr. Burnett. As a matter of fact, how many live in the towns and 
make use of those transportation facilities in working out in the 
country ? 

Mr. O’Connell. If you were to get on the early cars in the morning 
you would believe they were all going out there. 

Mr. Sabath. There is no one else you will find working out in the 
country, and on our railroads, than this very immigrant that you 
object to. 

Mr. Burnett. They work on the railroads because they pay them 
so little that the American and northwestern European won’t stay 
there; if they were not here, they would pay decent wages to our own 
workmen and they would work there. Americans and northwest 
Europeans used to do all that kind of work. Northwest Europe and 
Great Britain, with the exception of Ireland, are now more densely 
populated and some of the countries have more unemployed than 
ever before. 

Mr. Sabath. If they were not here, you could not find enough labor 
to do that kind of work; and because they do come here they really 
help the American laboring man in securing better positions, because 
it is then that they do the hard work and the American laboring 
man is advanced. 

Mr. Burnett. When I conclude this quotation, I will read you 
from an eminent authority on that question in New York City. I 
think he knows probably more about it than you or I. 


400 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Another way of putting this is to say that much of our present-day immigration is 
not responsive to the legitimate demands for additional labor in the United States. 
I think this fact should be made known throughout those sections of our country where 
many erroneously think that further restrictions of the right kind would increase the 
difficulties incident to obtaining labor for which there is a real demand. Quite the 
contrary is the case, for poor immigration tends to deter good immigrants from coming. 

Now, the authority I spoke of a moment ago, as to where they go, 
is that of Dr. Thomas Darlington, president of the board of health of 
New York City. He says: 

I have heard the assertion that immigration is necessary to carry on our public works, 
to build railroads, dig canals, and the like. But the present immigrants now coming 
over do not come for that purpose, and will not do that sort of work. 

Mr. Sabath. What work do they do ? 

Mr. Burnett. He tells you: 

No; they prefer to become push-cart peddlers and live in poverty in our cities, 
breeding disease and crime. They occupy our streets, the streets for which our tax¬ 
payers have paid heavily. They interfere with traffic and break the laws of sanitation 
which we have decided were necessary for the preservation of public health. 

Mr. Sabath. I want to say that a mighty small percentage of those 
people are push-cart peddlers. 

Mr. O’Connell. If you were to look in the trenches, in the fac¬ 
tories, in the shops, and so forth, and see them working there, it 
would be pretty hard to reconcile Doctor Darlington’s description 
of them. 

Mr. Burnett. I am sorry to find that all of these authorities, 
who have such splendid means of knowing what they are talking 
about, are disputed by you gentlemen. 

Mr. Sabath. How do you make Doctor Darlington an authority 
on it ? I think I am a better authority than he is. I think I have 
had better opportunities of observation. 

Mr. Burnett. Are you a better authority than Doctor Darlington 
as to New York City? 

Mr. Sabath. Well, I am in the city of Chicago, the greatest city in 
the world. I have lived in that section of the city where we receive 
large immigration from these very countries that you have men¬ 
tioned. I know the people of the city of Chicago do not object to 
them coming to our city; they have helped to build our city, and 
you will find them working everywhere, performing the hardest work. 

Mr. Burnett. Another reason why this is a fair test is because no 
nation could complain of it. If we were to say that no Italian, no 
Greek or Syrian, should come, of course we would have international 
complications, but no nation can say that we have not the right to 
demand a higher standard of education for those that come to this 
country. 

Mr. O’Connell. Has this feature ever occurred to you ? Have 
you taken up the question on this line ? That in cases, such as took 
place in Ireland, where education was a crime, where- 

Mr. Hayes. In Ireland, education a crime? 

Mr. O’Connell. It was; yes. 

Mr. Hayes. Not in our day. 

Mr. O’Connell. Yes; in our day. 

Mr. Hayes. Well, practically all Irishmen can read. 

Mr. O’Connell. There was a day, not so long past, when it was 
practically a crime, and a man could not be educated. 

Mr. Burnett. Under the English statutes? 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


401 


Mr. O’Connell. Yes; unless they were educated in the English 
schools, in a way that some people prescribed for them. Now, sup¬ 
pose that situation was existing in some country to-day which ex¬ 
isted in Ireland, a country which has sent to this country the most 
desirable kind of immigration; what would you say would be the 
result if you were to apply your educational test among men and 
women coming to this country who could neither read nor write ? 

Mr. Hayes. We are not legislating for a hundred years ago. 

Mr. O’Connell. Suppose that situation existed to-day? Isn’t 
that practically the situation with the Russian Jew to-day ? Isn’t he 
kept down by the Government so that education is almost impossible ? 

Mr. Hayes. They can all read. 

Mr. Burnett. One of the gentlemen representing the Russian 
Jews said that there were very few of the heads of families in Russia 
who could not read. 

Mr. Sabath. But another one stated it might amount to 15 per cent. 

Mr. Hayes. It is less than 2. 

Mr. O’Connell. I thought it was something like 30. 

Mr. Hayes. No; that would include the women and children. 

Mr. O’Connell. Does your bill relate only to the heads of families ? 

Mr. Hayes. Yes. 

Mr. O’Connell. I think that is going altogether too far. 

Mr. Burnett. The idea was not to cause the separation of families 
where the man, who is the responsible head, can almost always meet 
those conditions. And in that connection I desire to quote another 
very eminent authority. President Roosevelt in his message of 
December 3, 1901, following President McKinley’s lead, said: 


The second object of a proper immigration law ought to be to secure by a careful 
and not merely perfunctory educational test some intelligent capacity to appreciate 
American institutions and act sanely as American citizens. 

I want to say here that a different condition prevails among the 
people who are the illiterates mentioned here and the condition in 
Ireland. While they were an oppressed people, yet they had the 
same love of liberty and of popular government that they have now, 
the same as our own people ana our ancestors had, and they were very 
different people altogether from those now coming from southern 
Europe and western Asia. 

Mr. Sabath. The same thing applies to the great majority of those 
people who are coming here to-day. 

Mr. Burnett. How can that be when they] show over there they 
had little appreciation of liberty or the conditions would not have so 
long remained as they are? The form of government and lack of 
public schools reflects the character of the people. The Irish them¬ 
selves have been gradually correcting the political conditions in their 
country on account of their splendid intelligence. 

Mr. Sabath. The Slovenians, the Poles, and the Roumanians are 
doing the very thing the Irish are doing, but I regret to say they have 
not the amount of energy that the Irish have, but the fight has been a 
bitter one for the last hundred years; and if you will read the history 
of Poland, read the history of the Slovenian people, and the history 
of Bohemia you will learn that they have been at all times fighting to 
secure as much liberty as they possibly could, and fighting for the 
privilege and the right of education. 

49090—10-26 


402 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. I will read further from President Roosevelt’s 
message: 

This would not keep out all anarchists, for many of them belong to the intelligent 
criminal classes. But it would do what is also in point—that is, tend to decrease the 
sum of ignorance so potent in producing the envy, suspicion, malignant passion 
and hatred of order, out of which anarchistic sentiment mentally springs. Finally, 
all persons should be excluded who are below a certain standard of economic fitness to 
enter our industrial field as competitors with American labor. There should be 
proper proof of personal capacity to earn an American living and enough money to 
insure a decent start under American conditions. This would stop the influx of 
cheap labor, and the resulting competition which gives rise to so much bitterness in 
American industrial life; and it would dry up the spring of the pestilential social 
conditions in our great cities where anarchistic organizations have their greatest 
possibility of growth. Both the educational and economic test in a wise immigration 
law should be designed to protect and elevate the great body politic and social. A 
very close supervision should be exercised over the steamship companies which 
mainly bring over the immigrant, and they should be held to a strict accountability 
for any infraction of the law. 

Mr. Sabath. What do you read from ? 

Mr. Burnett. President Roosevelt’s message, and later ones, I 
believe, that of 1905, for instance—I have it here somewhere— 
reiterated substantially the same thing. 

Mr. Hayes. He did not go over the whole ground in 1905, but 
substantially reiterated what you have read. 

Mr. Burnett. He insisted upon the educational test. 

Mr. Sabath. That is not the only instance where a President has 
sent a message without giving the subject due consideration. 

Mr. Burnett. I quote that, not so much because it is a message 
from the President of the United States, but because of the argument, 
which, I think, is unanswerable, and the reason he gives for it. 

Now, there is another reason for that. The countries themselves 
and the people themselves would at once go to work for the purpose 
of educating their people in order to make them meet such require¬ 
ments, especially countries like Italy. Do not tell me Italy does not 
want to send its people, because it does; it encourages them to come, 
and it is from southern Italy that the greatest influx of illiterates is 
coming. The immigration from north Italy is small. They would 
at once go to work remedying that very condition and send us people 
who were, at least, more literate than those we are now getting, and 
on the average far better fitted for our citizenship, our industrial 
and social conditions. 

Mr. Sabath. I admit I do not know the conditions that prevail in 
Italy as well as I do the conditions that prevail in Austria-Hungary 
and the Slovenian countries, but I can assure you, sir, that all those 
countries are doing everything, rather the people residing in those 
countries, to secure themselves the education they think is needed; 
in fact, the majority of the schools maintained in these countries are 
maintained by the private subscriptions of these people and these 
races. 

Mr. Burnett. While it might be True that some of the countries 
would not encourage the education of its people in order that they 
might come to this country, it would encourage individual initiative, 
and they themselves, the individuals and their families, would 
exercise great care and diligence in securing at least the ability to read 
their own language or dialect or some other language of Europe, 
as the Hayes bill provides. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


403 


In regard to crime, I want to quote from another very distinguished 
authority, a man who had an opportunity to see that the rest of us 
did not have, and that is Gen. Theodore A. Bingham, former police 
commissioner of New York City. He said, in an interview published 
in the Cincinnati Enquirer and elsewhere, on July 20, 1907-—- 

Mr. Sabath. He has taken back what he said at that time. 

Mr. Burnett. No; I never understood that he did, because he said 
this when he was right in the midst of the Dyker Heights crimes. I 
would like to see it if you have his retraction; I will give you leave 
to insert it in the record if you find he has ever made such a retrac¬ 
tion. He said: 

There is another very important thing about this crime business. I don’t want to 
say anything that would be indiscreet, but unquestionably the hordes of immigrants 
that are coming here have a good deal to do with crimes against women and children. 
You will notice that these particular crimes are done by fellows who can not talk 
the English language. It is this wave of immigration that brings to New York the 
hundreds of thousands of criminals who don’t know what liberty means, and don’t 
care; don’t know our customs, can not speak the English language, and are in general 
the scum of Europe. The solution of the problem is to prohibit immigration. But 
when we come to executing immigration laws it is found to be practically impossible 
to deport. 

And that is true. We have found it is almost impossible to get 
rid of these fellows after they get here. 

The statement was made the other day by Mr. Keliher that this 
movement was inaugurated by the propaganda that he referred 
to as the Junior Order of American Mechanics. In answer to that, 
we have had before us also representatives of the farmers’ unions 
of the South and West, consisting of three millions of members; we 
have had before us representatives of the American Federation of 
Labor, representatives of the Railway Trainmen’s organizations, 
and others. The resolutions that have been passed by these various 
organizations have not just jumped up; they have been before their 
organizations for years and years, and the resolutions have each 
year been passed. Now, if it be true, as was asserted by Mr. Keliher 
before this committee, that this was the result of that propaganda 
alone, certainly during all of this time, with the investigation of 
these intelligent American workmen—and when I say American I 
mean both native born and foreign born—there would have been some 
dissent from those resolutions and they would have come to this 
committee and to Congress long before this, and would have had 
considerable weight. Then, too, there are resolutions of state leg¬ 
islatures, boards of charities, leagues, and other bodies. Now, on 
the other hand- 

Mr. Sabath. How do you know there is not a difference in the 
organizations ? 

Mr. Burnett. The very fact that no dissent has ever been brought 
to this committee, when it has on it such watchful and careful gentle¬ 
men as the gentleman from Chicago, Mr. Sabath, and if it had been 
he certainly would have found it and filed it long before this. 

Mr. Sabath. I did not desire to impose upon the committee by 
filing all the resolutions and objections I have received from various 
•organizations and societies against these bills. 

Mr. Hayes. I could make up a book of a hundred pages with let¬ 
ters I have received in favor of the illiteracy test. 




404 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Sabath. And I could bring thousands of letters and resolutions 
against it that I have received in the last few days. 

Mr. Burnett. Not originating with these important organizations 
which have presented their protests here. 

I want to quote from Mr. John Mitchell, who is one of the leaders of 
organized labor, from an article he wrote for the Outlook last August, 
entitled 1 ‘ Protect the workman: ’ ’ 

It is only necessary to visit the mining districts of the eastern and central Western 
States, the mill towns, and the centers of the textile industry to find these erstwhile 
European farm laborers— 

The farm laborers that the gentleman referred to a while ago— 

They have been colonized, and because of the large numbers who are congregated to¬ 
gether the opportunity for or the possibility of their assimilation is greatly minimized. 
The temptation to establish and perpetuate the customs and standards of their own 
countries, instead of adopting the standards of our country, is so great that if the sys¬ 
tem of colonization continues it will take several generations to amalgamate these 
trades and blend them into an American people. This condition is not best for them; 
neither is it good for us; it is simply the result of an unregulated immigration and an 
unwise distribution of aliens. 

We all know that where these people are congregated in large 
numbers there is less inclination to learn or to adapt themselves to 
American conditions and the greater inclination to perpetuate the 
conditions that they had in their own countries. 

Mr. O’Connell. You wouldn’t think so in the cities of Massachu¬ 
setts if you had to go into those cities and have business with those 
people in all kinds of business. I do not limit it to any one form. It 
only takes them a very short time before they are dealing with you on 
American ideals and American standards; they will adopt American 
customs in very quick order. I can not understand why such a state¬ 
ment as that should be made in view of the facts I find absolutely to 
the contrary. 

Mr. Sabath. I have all the confidence in the world in Mr. Mitchell, 
but on this point I think Mr. Mitchell is wrong; he contradicts him¬ 
self. He says that it is an uneven distribution, and still I find that 
he is opposed to a system whereby we could remedy that wrong and 
bring about a better distribution of the immigration. 

Mr. Burnett. But it is my opinion, and it is his idea, that even if 
there was a better distribution it would not ameliorate the conditions, 
because it would be a distribution of people who are, even when dis¬ 
tributed, still undesirable. 

Mr. Sabath. Well, has he or have you heard any objections against 
immigration from the sections of the country where the immigration 
goes ? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes. 

Mr. Sabath. Isn’t it a fact that these objections are always raised 
in a section of the country where they have no immigration ? 

Mr. Burnett. In reply to that I have the best authority for the 
statement that there is very strong sentiment against it in Massa¬ 
chusetts, and against it in Boston. 

Mr. O’Connell. Against what? 

Mr. Burnett. In favor of the restriction of immigraiion, and that 
statement is based on the fact that Senator Lodge was the author of the 
educational test in the Senate bill that passed the Senate, and the fact 
that Mr. Gardner, also representing a Massachusetts district, is one 
of the strongest advocates of an educational test that there is among 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


405 


us; and certainly those gentlemen, coming from that State, must 
know something about conditions there and reflect the sentiment of 
the people they represent. And not only that, but in my own sec¬ 
tion, where a number of these immigrants have gone in recent years, 
the protest comes in from both the cities and from the country. And 
the gentlemen suggests that these protests come from those who do not 
come in contact with these people, and yet here is John Mitchell, 
ex-president of and still active in the miners’ unions, who travels all 
over the country, who, perhaps, sees more people and more workmen 
in a day than any Member of Congress will see in a year’s service, 
saying this: 

To that end wage-earners believe: First. That, in addition to the restrictions imposed 
by the laws at present in force, the head tax of $4 now collected should be increased 
to $10. 

And that is my bill; I am not an extremist on the question of a 
head tax, but I do believe that it ought to be at least increased to $10; 
I do not remember whether Mr. Hayes’s bill provides for a head tax of 
$10 or $25. 

Mr. Sabath. Mr. Hayes’s bill provides for a head tax of $10. 

Mr. Burnett. Then, further reading from this Mr. Mitchell pam¬ 
phlet : 

Second. That each immigrant, unless he be a political refugee, should bring with 
him not less than $25, in addition to the amount required to pay transportation to 
the point where he expects to find employment. Third. That immigrants between 
the ages of 14 and 50 years should be able to read a section of the Constitution of the 
United States, either in our language, in their own language, or in the language of 
the country from which they come. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, are not those the views of the men who are in 
those organizations ? I think so. And I want to say that even the 
railroad interests of the South that have heretofore been so tena¬ 
ciously hanging on to the idea of indiscriminate immigration, mainly 
for the purpose of collecting the fees of transportation and developing 
traffic, in my judgment, are themselves modifying their views in 
regard to that, and I quote now from an address delivered by Mr. 
W. W. Finley, the president of the Southern Kailway Company, be¬ 
fore the Tulane University, in Louisiana, recently, in which he says: 

I do not take the position, Mr. President, that we should discourage immigration 
into the South; but I believe that, as far as possible, we should draw our immigrants 
in the first instance from other parts of our own country and from among; those of 
foreign birth who have already assimilated American ideals in other sections, and 
that we should seek to avoid any situation that would impose upon us the difficult 
task of assimilating all at once a large foreign element. 

Mr. Sabath. So that he is in favor of foreign-born citizens. 

Mr. Burnett. So we all are, if he is the right kind of a citizen; 
that is, I say we all are, I am, and I think every member of this 
committee is. Now, in that same connection I want to qoute from 
an editorial in the August, 1908, issue of the Textile World Record, 
a large monthly magazine published at Boston and New York, in the 
interest of textile manufacturers, and which says: 

In his paper read before the cotton congress at Paris last June, 1908, D. A. Tompkins, 
of Charlotte, N. C., told the European manufacturers plainly what was and is the only 
way to increase adequately the world’s cotton supply, developing cotton growing in 
the Southern States. Mr. Tompkins also pointed out the chief requirement for such 
development, an increase in the labor supply, and advised the Enropean manu¬ 
facturers to do what they could to divert European emigrants to the cotton belt. 


406 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


While Mr. Tompkins’s position is right, it must not be forgotten that the remedy is one 
to be applied with the greatest care and only after the most thorough investigation. 
Better that the American cotton crop shall remain stationary forever than that its 
increase should be accompanied by the creation or aggravation of race issues in this 
country. The remedy might easily prove worse than the disease. For this reason it 
should not be applied promiscuously by getting European manufacturers to promote 
the emigration of the offscourings of Europe to the South in order that they (the 
manufacturers) may receive more American cotton to be made into goods for the 
natives of Asia and Africa. It should be applied only after careful investigation and 
with the approval of the people of the South. They have the right to exercise a 
controlling influence in this matter, with the object of developing the resources of the 
country by immigration of those who will become part of the white race now there. 

The editor quotes a letter from the secretary of the Alabama Com¬ 
mercial and Industrial Association, several paragraphs of which I beg 
to call to your attention: 

There has been a considerable accession of Greeks in and around Mobile during the 
past two or three years, but the results from the point of view of land development 
were not satisfactory, and they are now clustered in the cities, running restaurants, 
fruit stands, and vieing with the negro in shining shoes. 

In the northern part of the State, which you will understand has practically the 
same problem of development as Pennsylvania, owing to its iron and coal mines, 
there has been a considerable accession in the past few years from the Slav races. 
They have not pleased, though they have done the required work, for their ideals of 
citizenship are very slightly developed, and their sense of obligation to the State is 
curiously lacking. At the first breath of hard times they scuttle in every direction, 
thoroughly disgusting all those who had been endeavoring to foster immigration along 
that line. Just what you suggest in relation to the difficulty of assimilation expe¬ 
rienced in Louisiana with the Italians would be duplicated here, I am sure. . 

Of similar import is an editorial in the last issue of the Manu¬ 
facturers’ Record, published at Baltimore, which has very much 
modified its views in that regard, and which I want to quote. It 
says in an editorial of March 10: 

The!National Liberal Immigration League, of New York City, is beginning to 
issue “a monthly magazine to be devoted in an open-minded and educational way 
to the various phases of immigration and kindred subjects.” The circular announces 
that among the purposes of the league are opposition to further restriction of im¬ 
migration and ample provision for the distribution of immigrants, “who should be 
especially directed to the South and West.” Therefore the National Liberal Immi¬ 
gration League ought not to receive the support of the country. The Manufacturers’ 
Record doubts not that the majority of the men whose names are carried upon the 
promotive literature of the league are sincere in their belief that it may accomplish 
something for the benefit of the country. The conviction of the Manufacturers’ 
Record is to the contrary. How any organization housed in New York, the center 
of daily manifestations of evils inherent in immigration that should be no further 
restricted, in the opinion of the league, can soberly expect the intelligence of the 
country to cooperate with it in scattering the evils passes understanding, for the 
league announces that “in order to diminish the evils of congestion free transporta¬ 
tion should be granted from overcrowded regions to places where there is a demand for 
labor.” 

As a matter of fact, the league loomed into prominence at the time when the evile 
of the kind of immigration the country was receiving stirred the country to efforts for 
further restriction, and the league was naturally regarded as antagonistic to further 
restriction, as it now acknowledges itself to be. Moreover, quite "prominent in the 
organization were representatives of a movement patronized by alien racial and ecclesi¬ 
astical influences which for a number of years had been attempting to use the South 
as a field for their wholesale colonization schemes. * * * One of the evils of 
latter-day immigration is this very effort to blind the eyes of the people of this country 
to the purpose, of foreign origin, of colonizing the South with aliens. Success of the 
schemes could result only in building up other centers of congestion of undesirables, 
intensifying the social, religious, and political menaces now rankly flourishing in New 
York. It is true that immigration is desirable, provided that it is the right kind of 
immigration. There was a “stream of human brawn, energy, and mentality” from 
abroad up to 1880 or 1890 of distinct value to the United States. It was valuable 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


407 


because it was largely of the stocks dominating in the history of the country, but 
about the beginning of the present century the character of immigration changed 
radically, and since then the dominant elements in the swelling flood have been com¬ 
posed largely of persons unfit for admission to this country. 

Mr. Sabatii. Well, again I disagree with the gentleman. 

Mr. Burnett. Certainly. 

Mr. Sabatii. I do not see how he can justly criticise the Liberal 
Immigration League when he himself is a resident of that—is that a 
New York publication? 

Mr. Burnett. No; a Baltimore publication. 

Mr. Sabath. Baltimore is a large city, but I doubt very much 
whether he has a better opportunity to judge than the Liberal Immi¬ 
gration League has. 

Mr. Burnett. And in the February number of last year the same 
journal says: 

It must be confessed that these southern immigration schemes and other sociological, 
educational, and economic movements engineered from New York disregard the fact 
of the South’s forty years’ fight for the maintenance of white civilization. It must be 
confessed that if the diverse schemes succeed, white civilization must pass from a 
portion of the South. What care the schemers for that, and what care they for the 
disinterested warnings as long as the public mind of the South can be diverted from 
the fundamental questions? 

Mr. O’Connell. What does he mean by that ? That white immi¬ 
gration to the South is going to interfere with white domination ? 

Mr. Burnett. It would bring on a second race issue in my country, 
Mr. O’Connell, to bring in large numbers of the southern and eastern 
Europeans and west Asiatics. 

Mr. O’Connell. A second race issue ? 

Mr. Burnett. The south Italian is not a white man, the Syrian 
is not a white man, and they are not so regarded. The negro in 
my country respects the Caucasian, the white man, and is gradually 
more and more yielding to that control, but he has no respect for 
the man that he denominates a “dago.” Still, while it may not raise 
an issue between the white man and the southern European, I believe 
that if it continues long enough there will be a race issue between 
the southern European and the negro himself, and perhaps between 
the white man ancl the south Italian also. 

Mr. Sabath. Will you pardon me, Mr. Burnett? I am not now 
in possession of the statistics showing the immigration to the South, 
but I am of the opinion- 

Mr. Burnett. Of what ? 

Mr. Sabath. Of the immigration to the South; but I am of the 
opinion that it has been very small; the fact is I do not think the 
entire immigration to the South has amounted to more than a few 
thousand, all in all, in the last three or four years. 

Mr. Burnett. You are mistaken about that. 

Mr. Sabath. Have you the report? 

Air. Burnett. Fortunately for us it has not been very great 
throughout the South generally, so far as the south Italian is con¬ 
cerned. 

Mr. Sabath. I think it is unfortunate for you. 

Air. O’Connell. I do too. 

Mr. Sabath. Because if you were to receive the white immigrants 
I venture to say your lands that are now being sold for two and three 
dollars an acre would at once become worth twice as much, three 



408 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


times and even ten times as valuable as they are now. I remember 
myself that lands selling for two, three, and four dollars an acre 
twenty years ago have on account of immigration increased in value 
up to $50 and $100 an acre. You take the States of Wisconsin, 
Nebraska, both the Dakotas, Minnesota, and even certain sections 
in Illinois, and certain sections in Kansas and Iowa, and other sec¬ 
tions all through the West, and I can remember when I could have 
obtained land there, before immigration started, at two and three 
dollars an acre, and to-day that very land is worth from $25 to $100 
an acre. 

Mr. Hayes. Do you think that is an advantage to the United 
States to have its lands away up like that and all taken up and 
cultivated ? 

Mr. Sabatii. The people of the United States are benefited. 

Mr. Hayes. I do not see it; because it is to their advantage to 
have cheap land; if the land is high it makes the food dear. 

Mr. Sabath. If you cultivate more land it will not make food 
dearer, it will make it cheaper. 

Mr. Hayes. In the West, in those States that you have mentioned, 
the cheap land is gone and there are no public lands. 

Mr. Burnett. And 90,000 young men are going to Canada every 
year. In the greater portion of the South we no longer have cheap 
lands. 

Mr. Sabath. May I ask you a question? If all that were true, 
and those lands were not cultivated, could we export millions and 
millions of bushels of wheat every year ? 

Mr. Hayes. We are not exporting much now. 

Mr. Sabath. You are mistaken; we are. 

Mr. Burnett. The complete answer to that is that it was a differ¬ 
ent class of immigration that built up the Northwest, different from 
those now coming in. Conditions have changed just as they have 
with regard to our forests. Conservation is the cry now and not 
complete exploitation. 

' Mr. Sabath. And the same objections were raised against that 
immigration then that is now being raised against those now, 
coming in. 

Mr. Burnett. Not to that extent, or some means would have been 
secured to stop it. In regard to the immigration to the South, there 
is a section in and around Birmingham—the section in which I live— 
sections in Texas, and other parts of the South where many undesir¬ 
able immigrants have gone. True, there is a German county in my 
district, and those Germans are fine men, fine farmers, and good 
citizens. We welcome that class of people. But the class that is 
pulling down the civilization of the country is not increasing the price 
of lands nor making more productive the farms in that country. So 
far as the price of lands is concerned, there are no cheap lands in Ala¬ 
bama now, and the price has not been increased by the influx of the 
south Italian, the Greek, or the Syrian. 

Mr. Sabath. Isn’t the land in the county where the Germans have 
settled worth more than the land in the county south of it ? 

Mr. Burnett. Well, the county south of it does not belong to my 
district—it is a mineral county—but the county east of it is of the 
same character of county. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


409 


Mr. Sabath. I have heard you say many times that you thought a 
great deal of those people—those Germans that resided in your 
district ? 

Mr. Burnett. I do. 

Mr. Sabath. And you have also stated that they are as fine a class 
of people as one would wish to have. 

Mr. Burnett. And I reiterate that statement. The lands in that 
county are now as valuable as any farm lands in my district, due to 
a great extent to those Germans and others who came in there, but 
that is a class of people which would not be excluded by Mr. Hayes’s 
educational test. 

Mr. O’Connell. What about the places where the Italians have 
gone? Hasn’t the land grown in value in those places also and 
haven’t the people prospered ? 

Mr. Burnett. There are not a dozen south Italian farmers in that 
section of the South; they do not go to farming. 

Mr. O’Connell. Take it in those places where they have gone into 
business and not into farming; has not the community increased in 
wealth and has it not grown more prosperous than before these men 
came there? 

Mr. Burnett. The community increased in wealth in spite of that 
fact. One coal operator told me he had, to a large extent, discharged 
his Italian laborers and gone back to using negro labor because he said 
the negro was a better laborer, though not as steady; and another 
operator told me that while he employed Italians he would prefer to 
have negroes, but was compelled to.keep the Italians in order to 
regulate the price of the labor. 

My time is about up, and I would like to refer to a few other propo¬ 
sitions in the five or ten minutes that remain. 

The Chairman. It is now 5 minutes of 12. 

Mr. Burnett. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed the illiteracy test 
because, as I said, I think it the most important, but I believe the 
head tax ought to be increased to $10. 

Mr. Sabath. You do not agree with Mr. Elvins, whose bill provides 
for a hundred dollars as a head tax? 

Mr. Burnett. I do not want a prohibitory tax, and that might 
have that effect, to some extent. A distinguished lawyer, who spoke 
the other day, said that the head tax would probably be unconstitu¬ 
tional because it was in violation of the section of the Constitution 
putting a limitation upon the taxing power. He referred to the 
case in Head Money, 112 United States, in which the Supreme Court 
of the United States said: 

That these statutes are regulations of commerce—of commerce with foreign nations— 
is conceded in the argument in this case; and that they constitute a regulation of 
that class which belongs exclusively to Congress is held in all the cases in this court. 

It is upon these propositions that the court has decided in all these cases that the 
state laws are void. Let us examine those decisions for a moment. 

I desired to refer to all of these cases, but I will just read the con¬ 
clusion of the one cited; 

It is enough to say that, Congress having the power to pass a law regulating immi¬ 
gration as a part of commerce of this country with foreign nations, we see nothing in 
the statute by which it has here exercised that power, forbidden by any other part of 
the Constitution. 


410 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


I think it is absolutely conclusive, under the power to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations, that we have the right to do that, 
and that part of the argument as to unconstitutionality falls to the 
ground. 

In regard to whether it is fair and just or not. A majority of these 
people that come are of the undesirable class, and, while they may be 
wealth makers, to a very limited extent, they are not taxpayers, 
either to the National Government or to the state government to any 
great extent. 

Mr. O’Connell. But they must pay something by reason of our 
system of indirect taxation. 

Mr. Sabath. There I disagree with you again, Mr. Burnett; they 
are paying their share of our taxes. 

Mr. Burnett. Well, that is my proposition and, of course—I 
insist- 

Mr. Sabath. Where do we derive our revenue from ? 

Mr. Burnett. If you gentlemen would allow me, I would like to 
go on, because my time is limited. They only wear a little clothing, 
and under our system of indirect taxation to which the gentleman has 
referred they pay much less tariff tax than the American people, who 
wear more decent and costly clothing and use more costly imports, 
and they are, in that way, much less taxpayers than our people; they 
do not bear their proportion of the national taxes, and they do not 
bear much of the state taxes because, as a rule, they accumulate very 
little property themselves, and hence there is nothing upon which 
taxes can be levied. 

Even if it was for the purpose of raising revenue, to a certain extent, 
outside of carrying on the Bureau of Immigration, I think it would 
be fair and just, if in some equitable way, these people should be com¬ 
pelled to pay some fair share of the taxes of the country—a country 
which gives them protection, a country which cares for them in its 
asylums, hospitals, and other public institutions—and a large number 
do go into insane and charitable asylums and into criminal institu¬ 
tions of the country—and for that reason and for other reasons I 
believe that would be a just requirement, in order to make them pay 
a fair proportion of the expenses which they themselves make neces¬ 
sary. 

In regard to the $25, money in the pocket. I think that is right 
because certainly if he was an American he might get along with less 
money in America when going to some other place in our country; 
but here are people who can not speak our language, who come here 
strangers to our customs, country, and our institutions, and even to 
our language. Now, is it reasonable to suppose that such persons 
will enjoy the same advantage of immediately having the ability and 
possibility of earning a livelihood as those who know more of the 
language and of our country? I believe it just to require them to 
have enough cash so they will not, at least, become a charge on the 
community to which they go. Out of kindness to them they ought 
to be required to have it to tide them over until they can find profit¬ 
able employment and to take them out of New York and Boston. I 
might add other reasons, but the time for adjournment has come, and 
I shall ask leave to extend these suggestions. To my mind every one 
of these three requirements of the Hayes bill ought to be adopted 
in the interest of the whole country. In a document recently sent 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


411 


out by the National Immigration League it is stated that the con¬ 
gested eastern cities are overrun with thousands of sturdy laborers 
without employment and often without bread. This condition 
should not exist. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. Is it your thought that the immigrant 
who comes for the first time and who pays the head tax, such as it 
may be—$4 now, or $10 as it is proposed to make it in the Hayes bill— 
has an unfair advantage over the man who is already here and who 
has assisted in building up the community ? 

Mr. Burnett. I do think he has an unfair advantage over him, 
and I do not think it puts him to disadvantage to say that he must 
pay something to keep up the country that he is coming to—a coun¬ 
try already provided for him by our people. Because we have not 
required it of those who have come prior to this time is no argu¬ 
ment that we ought not to begin to require it of those who may come 
now. 

Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania. To put it conversely, do you assert 
that the fact that the man who is already here, the man who has been 
here for many years, having helped to build up the country, justifies 
the imposition of this increased head tax upon the man who is com¬ 
ing in for the first time and who has not contributed to what has 
already been done ? 

Mr. Burnett. I think that, because our people have been here all 
of this time, have paid their share of the taxes, and gotten the country 
in the condition it is in, the man who is coming here ought to 
contribute something to compensate for what his predecessor has 
already done for him. 

Mr. Moore. Your point would be that the man that comes in under 
these conditions, and finding the country already made, should pay 
well for it ? 

Mr. Burnett. Yes, I think so; because he finds the country already 
built up by the taxes, the labor, and intellect of those who have been 
here. The best is worth paying for. 

Mr. Sabatii. He does not live on the country when he does arrive; 
the fact is he commences to increase the wealth of the country and 
commences to produce. 

Mr. Burnett. But while he is increasing it the other fellow- who 
has been here all the time- 

Mr. Sabath. Is benefited ? 

Mr. Burnett. No, sir; is doing the same thing—that is, building 
up the country to a greater degree—and may suffer from the compe- 
petition. 

Mr. Sabatii. Now, about the Italian not buying good clothing or 
not spending any large sums of money for clothing. I know that 
Italians do buy the best possible merchandise that is offered them. 
If you w-ill notice them, you wall find them wearing the best suits of 
clothes, and they are trying to buy the very best that they can find 
in the market. 

Mr. Moore. I would like to say, of my own knowledge, that Italians 
make excellent farmers. In certain parts of New- Jersey there are 
entire communities of Italians who take up tracts of land and 
develop them. 



412 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Hayes. North or south Italians ? 

Mr. Burnett. That is true, Mr. Moore, of the north Italian, and 
so it is with the Bohemians; but they are of a different class of men, 
and those are the people the educational test will not affect. 

Mr. O' Connell. In* Massachusetts, where the agricultural con¬ 
ditions are not of the best, the Italians, both north and south, have 
gone into our fields that were abandoned and have reclaimed them 
and made garden lands of them; they are bringing prosperity into 
those communities where the Puritans once lived. 

Mr. Burnett. Mr. O’Connell, I will quote from a letter written by 
Mr. Walter L. Sears, superintendent of the State Free Employment 
Bureau of Massachusetts, under date of August 24, 1909, to the 
Immigration Restriction League of Boston, which has always favored 
the illiteracy test: 

I heartily indorse in the main the object of your organization, but it would seem to 
me that much of the energy now spent in its work could well be devoted to the problem 
of how to get the people back on the land. 

It has been said during these hearings that a large per cent of the 
immigrants returned to their own land. This is not true. 

The United States seems to be about the only one of the new . 
countries with any considerable net foreign immigration, that is, an 
excess of alien immigrants over alien emigrants. It is difficult to 
secure reliable statistics as to emigration, but what figures there are 
and such official statements as can be obtained from government 
publications and officials bears out the foregoing statement that the 
United States is the principal country to which European and western 
Asiatic emigrants are now going in large numbers. Canada and 
Argentine Republic are the only other countries with a foreign immi¬ 
gration worth mentioning, as far as this hemisphere or the southern 
part of the old hemisphere is concerned. 

And in 1908 out of the 262,469 aliens that entered Canada, one- 
third—that is, 87,620—came from or via the United States. Of this 
number 59,832 were United States citizens and took with them, 
according to the Canadian superintendent of immigration, over 
$60,000,000. Last year over 90,000 of our citizens crossed into 
Canada. During the past dozen years nearly half a million of our 
citizens have slipped or been “crowded,” James J. Hill says, over the 
border because “our public domain is exhausted” and “they are to 
be driven into ‘our’ factories and workshops” and into our con¬ 
gested cities, or across into Canada. 

I have here a very interesting table, which we call “Table No. 1,” 
on this point: 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 413 


Table showing immigration , emigration , debarred , and changes in tax for the last ten years. 

[Compiled from annual reports of Commissioner-General of Immigration.] 


Year ending June 
30— 

Immigrant 
alien ar- 
rivals.** 

Per cent of 
immigrant 
aliens who 
have been 
in the 
United 
States be¬ 
fore. 

Nonimmi¬ 
grant alien 
arrivals.** 

Total alien 
arrivals, <* 

Total alien 
depart¬ 
ures. i> 

Debarred 

aliens.** 

Tax per 
capita.** c 

1900 . 

1901 . 

1902 . 

1903 . 

1904 . 

1905 . 

1906 . 

1907 . 

1908 . 

1909 . 

Total for last 
ten years... 

448,572 
487,918 
(148,743 
857,046 

812.870 
1,026,499 
1,100,735 
1,285,349 

782.870 
751,786 

11.6 

11.9 

9.5 

8.9 

12.8 

12.1 

12.1 

6.8 

8.1 

(9) 

65,635 
74,950 
82,055 
64,269 
27,844 
33,256 
65,618 
153,120 
141,825 
192,449 

514,207 
' 562,868 

730,798 
921,315 
840,714 
1,059,755 
1,166,353 
1,438,469 
924,695 
944,235 

206,351 
209,318 
220,103 
247,559 
332,019 
385,111 
356,257 
431,306 
714,828 
400,392 

4,246 
3,516 
4,974 
8,769 
7,994 
11,879 
12,432 
13,064 
10,902 
10,411 

d$ 1.00 

e 2.00 

/ 4.00 

(h) 

8,202,388 


901,021 

9,127,409 

3,503,154 

88,187 



° Official government statistics. (Annual reports of Commissioner-General of Immigration.) 
IQ^Statistics furnished to the Government by steamship companies. (Required by act of February 20, 

c The first head tax was a “duty of 50 cents,” levied by the immigration act of August 3, 1882, “on all 
passengers not citizens brought to the United States by steam or sail vessel,” and was held constitutional 
and Congress’s power to tax unlimited and exclusive by the United States Supreme Court in 112 U. S., 580, 
under Congress’s power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The first paragraph of section 9, Article 
I, of the Constitution, limiting tax to S10 on importation of slaves became obsolete in 1808, at which time 
Congress forbade such importation altogether, and which was for all practical purposes African exclusion. 

By rider on an emergency act of 1894. 

« Immigration act of March 3,1903. 

/ Immigration act of February 20,1907. 

a Not given in the 1909 annual report. 

h The sundry civil appropriation act of March 3, 1909, abolished the immigrant fund as a special fund 
July 1,1909, and directed all receipts to be covered into the general or miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. 


The annual reports of the Commissioner-General of Immigration 
show a number of interesting facts. During the past decade over 
9,000,000 aliens have entered the country and over three and one-half 
have left. Of those that come for the nrst time with avowed inten¬ 
tion of staying not over one-tenth on the average have ever been in 
the country before, which seems to show that a very small part of the 
large number of aliens that leave the United States annually com¬ 
paratively few of them do return. Eighty-eight thousand one hun¬ 
dred and eighty-seven aliens have been debarred since 1899, as against 
9,127,409 admitted, or less than 1 per cent. But perhaps the most 
striking fact is the gradual but enormous annual increase in volume 
down to 1907, when 1,438,469 aliens entered the United States, only 
to drop down just below the one million mark in 1908 and 1909, during 
the depression. There is a corresponding increase in alien emigra¬ 
tion which becomes all the more pronounced during 1908, almost 
doubling in that year, only to drop back to about 40 per cent of the 
alien influx in 1909 with the first signs of returning prosperity. 
Immigration would seem now to be just starting on another enormous 
upward movement or wave, which will, unless there is restrictive 
legislation, doubtless run still higher than the last, and help to increase 
and intensify the crash and the unemployed by the presence of large 
numbers of them here and the hasty exit of others with savings. 










































414 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


The following table (No. 2) brings out an interesting fact: 

Table comparing the immigration and emigration of certain other countries with that of 

the United States. 


[Compiled from official immigration reports, consular reports, Monthly Bulletin of South American 

Republics, etc.] 


Y ear. 

United States. 

Canada.® 

Australia.** 

Total 
alien ar¬ 
rivals. 

Total 
alien de¬ 
partures. c 

Alien ar¬ 
rivals 
direct 
from Old 
World. 

Alien ar¬ 
rivals from 
or via 
United 
States. 

Alien im¬ 
migration. 

Alien emi¬ 
gration. 

1899 

356,715 
514,207 
562,868 
730,798 
921,315 
840,714 
1,059,755 
1,166,353 
1,438,469 
924,695 

172,837 
206,351 
209,318 
220,103 
247, 559 
332,019 
385,111 
356,257 
431,306 
714,828 

d 32,598 
15,352 
31,162 
40,991 
78,891 
85,101 
102, 594 
e 54,780 
138,591 
174,849 

d 11,945 
8,543 
17,987 
26,388 
49,473 
45,229 
43,693 
« 30,971 
84,111 
87,620 



1900 



1901 



1902 . 

1903 

274,105 

243,507 

1904 



1905 



1906 



1907 



1908 






Year. 

Peru./ 

Brazil, g 

Argentine Republic.^ 

Alien im¬ 
migration. 

Alien ar¬ 
rivals. 

Alien de¬ 
partures. 

Arrivals. 

Depar¬ 

tures. 

1899. 

1,107 

1,663 

1,014 

25,130 
29,121 
26,292 


111,083 
105,902 
125,951 
96,080 
112,671 
161,078 
221,622 
302,249 
257,924 

62,241 
55,417 
80,251 

79.427 

74.427 
66, 597 
82,772 

103,852 
138,063 

1900. 


1901. 


1902. 


1903. 


18,161 
27,751 

36,410 
32,179 

1904. 


1905. 


1906. 


27,147 
31,150 
48,216 


1907. 



1908. 


28,457 






a Canada has practically the same excluded classes as the United States, but its immigration laws give 
the governor in council the power to prohibit the landing of any specified class of aliens and of immigrants 
not coming by continuous journey upon through tickets purchased in their own country. Under this 
discretionary authority by orders in council, Hindoos, Asiatics not having $200 in possession, immigrants 
coming via steamship lines unwilling to carry undesirables back free, certain aliens not having from $25 
to $50 and ticket to destination, etc., are excluded. 

b Australia, New Zealand, New South Wales, Natal, and Cape Colony have much better immigration 
laws than any other country, and exclude among others aliens unable to read and write at dictation 50 
words in an European language or dialect. 

c These particular statistics furnished voluntarily by the steamship companies, but required so to do 
beginning July 1,1907, by immigration act of February 20, 1907. 

d First six months of 1900; change made from calendar to fiscal year. 

e First nine months fiscal year 1906. 

/ Peru on May 14, 1909, excluded Chinese having less than 500 pounds in cash. 

g Brazilian Review, March 9,1909, gives these statistics for Rio de Janeiro, which like New York for the 
United States, receives about 80 per cent of the travel. 

h Official report of minister of agriculture and director of immigration. The statistics include immigra¬ 
tion “directa de Ultramar” and “por via de Montevideo.” Argentine has more available fertile public 
lands, offers greater inducements probably, etc., but has never attained a net immigration of over 198,397 
(1907), which fell to 119,861 in 190S. 

Note— Panama has adopted the United States immigration laws and has prohibited the naturalization 
of Chinese, Syrians, and Turks. Mexico is now conducting an official investigation with a veiw to immigra¬ 
tion legislation. 

(At 12 o’clock the committee adjourned.) 






































































HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


415 


The Committee on Immigration 

and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday , March 29, 1910. 

The committee met at 10.30 a. m., with Hon. Benjamin F. Howell 
(chairman) presiding. Others present were Representatives Bennet, 
Hayes, Burnett, Elvins, Kustermann, and Goldfogle. 

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY GRACE QUACKENBOS, ATTORNEY 
AND COUNSELOR AT LAW, NEW YORK, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Quackenbos, we will let vou proceed in vour 
own way. 

Mr. Burnett. Do you desire to address yourself to the bill intro¬ 
duced by Mr. Sabath ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir; the bill H. R. 21426, to increase the 
scope of the work of the Division of Information of the Department 
of Commerce and Labor. It is the distribution bill. I have not 
discussed with Mr. Sabath any particular way of advancing this 
proposition, so I will commence by outlining the bill. 

Section 1 changes the name of the bureau from “ Division of In¬ 
formation” to ‘‘Division of Distribution and Information.” This 
better defines the purpose of the division and gives a more intelligent 
idea as to its functions. The present title is misleading, the principal 
object of the division being to bring about the equitable distribution 
of aliens throughout the States and Territories. 

Sections 2, 3, and 4 provide that the division of distribution and 
information shall collect information as to general labor conditions 
throughout the United States and shall publish the same each month 
in bulletin form for the use of officials and others having to do with 
the admission of aliens. Such information shall be furnished also 
to all persons legally within the United States, but to no o there. 
The bill, therefore, provides that said information shall not be pub¬ 
lished abroad. 

In order to have efficient distribution, it is necessary for this divi¬ 
sion to collect information of every available kind having to do with 
labor conditions in this country, and I understand that the com¬ 
missioners of immigration at the landing ports also send out inspectors 
to gather such information. The work, and the expense of same, are 
therefore duplicated. This bill will save the duplicate expense. 
All such information will be centralized in the one bureau—the Divis¬ 
ion of Information. The bill also provides that officials at the ports 
of landing shall give due weight to the information contained in the 
bulletins in determining the eligibility of aliens to land. 

The Chairman. If we published this information, they would get 
it abroad? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. The bill provides for the publishing of bulle¬ 
tins to be made use of solely in tnis country, and that the information 
contained therein is not to be published abroad. 

Do you wish me to continue outlining the bill or to take up discus¬ 
sion of the evidence which supports it? Please state your pleasure 
in the matter. 

Mr. Hayes. We will leave it entirely to you. 


416 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mrs. Quackenbos. Then, I will review the sections hurriedly. 

Sections 2, 3, and 4 I have discussed but call your attention again 
to the part which provides that the officials of the Immigration 
Service shall give weight to the question of demand in* admitting 
aliens. 

Mr. Burnett. At the ports ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir; but I want to say that I would amend 
that section. The section reads that they 11 shall give full weight 
to such information in determining the eligibility of aliens to enter the 
United States, taking into consideration the calling, trade, or voca¬ 
tion of the alien and the demand for persons of his or her calling, 
trade, or vocation at the point to which he or she is destined.’’ If a 
hundred men want to go to Kansas to do masonry work and there is 
no demand for masons in Kansas they would not be admitted to 
go to Kansas. The division could inform them as to where masons 
are in demand, and they would be permitted to proceed to that 
particular locality. 

Mr. Burnett. They could not determine that until after they 
were admitted ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. That is just what I think. To my mind, it 
would be advisable to strike out that part of the bill and simply 
provide that such information shall be given to the officials at the 
immigration stations and others legally entitled to the same. But I 
think it is not within the province of officials at the landing ports to 
tell immigrants that they can or can not go to a particular place. 

The Chairman. After admitted ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Even after admission, the alien should not be 
told to go to one place or another. Correct information as to all 
working opportunities should be laid before him and he should then 
be free to choose the particular locality in which he desires to work 
and live.. 

If he is not capable of making a choice he should be advised by 
persons of his own nationality—one who understands the immigrant 
and the conditions from which he has come and what he is capable of 
doing here. The questions of admission and rejection are entirely 
distinct, and should be separated from the question of distribution. 
I think it is a fact that heretofore opposition against distribution has 
resulted from confusion of these terms. Some have failed to note 
that distribution takes effect only after the question of admission 
has been determined and that distribution has really nothing to do 
with immigration, but that it simply evens up things and solves 
difficult problems with which we are confronted in this country, such 
as the problems of congestion of population, development of un¬ 
developed resources, high cost of living, the tuberculosis problem, etc. 

Mr. Burnett. They will give information to anyone who asks 
for it; I mean under the present existing law? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir; but it strengthens the present law 
to insert in this bill a proviso that the information shall be given only 
to those who are legally within the United States and to no others. 
I will give you my reason for this: I have discussed this question 
with Mr. John Mitchell, who said he understood that the Division 
of Information was advertised abroad. He said that in the Slav 
countries and in Italy the steamship agents tell would-be emigrants 
in remote peasant provinces that there is in the United States a 


HEAKING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


417 


government agency which will procure work for all who migrate to 
America. I think that Mr. Mitchell is mistaken in this, for I spent 
eight months recently traveling through these peasant provinces 
and heard not a word of it. In different countries of Europe I 
asked if this division were known, but no one seemed ever to have 
heard of the “Division of Information.” 

Mr. Burnett. How recently ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I left America January, 1909, and returned the 
latter part of September of the same year. In order to be sure, 
however, that this part of my investigation was correct, I wrote a 
letter two weeks ago to Mr. T. V. Powderly, Chief of the Division of 
Information. I asked him to answer the question. 

Here is a copy of my letter: 

Washington, D. C., March 14, 1910. 

T. V. Powderly, Esq., 

Chief Division of Information, 

Department of Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: I am informed that the steamship agents in Italy and the Slav countries, 
seeking to induce peasants to emigrate to America- 

Mr. Goldfogle. What letter are you reading from ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. A letter which I wrote to Mr. Powderly, 
prompted by the criticism made by Mr. John Mitchell, who said that 
he had heard that the Division of Information was advertised abroad, 
and that therefore it induced abnormal immigration. As I have 
said, I believe that Mr. Mitchell has been misinformed in this connec¬ 
tion, ^because I have investigated this matter, both in Europe and in 
the United States, and do not find that such is the fact. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What do they say respecting the congestion that 
results from the immigrants remaining in the cities ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. That is really another question which they did 
not say anything about, but which we can probably take up a little 
later, if you do not mind. I went abroad and traveled mule-back 
through the peasant provinces of certain countries in southern 
Europe, from which a large part of our immigration com^s. Before 
doing so, I had resigned my position as special assistant to the 
Attorney-General, so that I might be free to place whatever informa¬ 
tion I secured before Congress or use it in any way I deemed best, 
without being restricted. 

As I said, I heard nothing of the government distribution bureau 
in Europe. I talked to a large number of peasants. They never 
heard of the Division of Information. Upon my return I desired 
to secure official information as to whether the Department of 
Commerce and Labor had ever heard that the division was adver¬ 
tised abroad. Accordingly, I wrote this letter to the Department of 
Commerce and Labor inquiring whether the federal distribution 
bureau was advertised abroad or whether the department had ever 
heard that it was so advertised. The letter and the answer thereto 
are really very important, and if you do not object I will read them. 
This is my letter to Mr. Powderly: 

I am informed that the steamship agents in Italy and the Slav countries, seeking to 
induce peasants to emigrate to America, spread the news in peasant provinces abroad 
that the United States Government will furnish work for immigrants after they land 
in America. I am informed also that this stimulates immigration abnormally. 

Will you be good enough to let me know whether this is a fact. In other words, 
are the applicants at your New York branch and other branches those who have been 

49090—10-27 


418 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


recommended by the steamship agents abroad, or who have in some other way learned 
in Europe that through the government distribution bureau they could find work. 

May I ask what proportion of such applicants you have, if such is the case. And 
will you kindly tell me how the other applicants learn of the good offices of your 
division. 

I addressed this letter to Mr. Powderly because he is the chief of 
the division. An answer came from Mr. Powderly and the same day 
I saw Mr. Keefe, the Commissioner-General of Immigration, and 
asked him whether he confirmed what Mr. Powderly wrote. He told 
me that he did, and therefore, though you have not the Commissioner- 
General’s signature to it, you have my word that he said that there 
was no foundation for the rumor that the Division of Information 
was advertised abroad, although he knew that there had once been a 
rumor to that effect. 

Mr. Powderly’s answer to my letter is as follows: 

Your letter of even date, addressed to the chief of the Division of Information, in 
which you say, “I am informed that the steamship agents in Italy and the Slav 
countries, seeking to induce peasants to emigrate to America, spread the news in 
peasant provinces abroad that the United States Government will furnish work for 
immigrants after they land in America. I am informed also that this stimulates 
immigration abnormally,” is before me, and in reply I have to say that about a year 
ago a rumor that immigration was stimulated through circulating the report abroad 
that the division of information would find work for immigrants upon arrival in this 
country was investigated and no evidence of any kind or character was produced to 
bear out or lend color to the rumor. Since that time the inspector in charge of infor¬ 
mation work at New York has made diligent inquiry of those who called upon him 
for information, and up to the present time not one has stated that they were informed 
abroad of the existence of the Division of Information. 

Immigrants have been questioned on arrival at immigrant stations as to whether 
they had heard of the existence of the Division of Information, but so far none of 
them has indicated that they had any knowledge of it. 

You ask how applicants for information learn of the good offices of the division, and 
I take the liberty of inclosing with this a leaflet, printed in various languages, which 
the officers of the Immigration Service hand to immigrants after they have been duly 
landed. 

So far we have no evidence to bear out the statement that immigration is stimulated 
in any way by reports circulated abroad concerning the existence of the Division of 
Information. 

Respectfully, yours, T. Y. Powderly, Chief of Division. 

I have written at the foot of the page: 

This letter was confirmed by Mr. Keefe, Commissioner-General of Immigration, 
during a personal conversation later in the day. 

I place on record these letters and a pamphlet issued by the Depart¬ 
ment of Commerce and Labor [exhibiting]. It is the pamphlet of 
which Mr. Powderly speaks. It reads in English and various other 
languages: 

The United States Government has established a Division of Information, the duty 
of which is to gather from all available sources information as to localities where 
settlers are needed; where farm lands are for sale or for rent, with the prices and terms 
upon which they can be bought or rented, and also where different kinds of work can 
be obtained. For this information you should call at the Information Branch, United 
States Immigration Service, 17 Pearl street, New York City, where will be found 
government officers able to converse with you in your own language. There is no 
fee or chaige for the information given. 

These are not distributed on board ship, nor at the sailing ports 
abroad. 

Mr. Goldfogle. In different languages? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir; in different languages. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


419 


To continue: Nevertheless, from my experience in this work, I 
knew very well that immigration was stimulated abroad by steam¬ 
ship and private employment agencies. For nearly three years I 
had assisted the Department of Justice in the prosecution of peonage 
cases, and had sole charge of the cases in New York City against 
labor agents who had lured ignorant foreigners into peonage camps. 
As an attorney for the Department of Justice, I filed charges against 
these agents before the commissioner of licenses in New York 
City and various licenses were revoked. Immigrants had been hor¬ 
ribly defrauded, in some instances, by their own countrymen. I do 
not find that they are defrauded by Americans. Through the cour¬ 
tesy of the Department of Justice, I have brought over some records 
of these cases, taken from the files. Before reading the records, I 
will say that when I was engaged upon this work we found no federal 
statute under which we could prosecute these agents and have their 
licenses revoked. 

The peonage investigations brought out facts which proved 
quite clearly that many New York labor agents who sent immi¬ 
grants from New York State to other States under employment 
contracts were deceiving these immigrants as to conditions of work 
and living, as to wages and hours of labor, often as to the locality 
to which they were going, and in very many cases they would promise 
a kind of employment which did not exist in the locality to which 
they were sent. For instance, expert masons were sent to a cotton 
plantation; boys promised work in a licorice factory were sent to a 
turpentine camp; a tailor to a mine. We made request to the then 
Attorney-General, either Mr. Moody or Mr. Bonaparte—I do not for 
the moment remember which (I was appointed under Mr. Moody)— 
for permission to use the government funds for the purpose of prose¬ 
cuting these swindling agents. Without an appropriation I had no 
money for witness fees, and it was not right to ask workmen to stay 
away from their work without remuneration in order to aid us with 
their testimony before the commissioner of licenses. 

Mr. Burnett. That is a state officer? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. A municipal officer, appointed by the mayor. 
The Attorney-General asked the Comptroller of the Treasury for an 
opinion as to whether we could expend the government money for 
this purpose. The comptroller held that we could, since these pros¬ 
ecutions were a preventive of peonage. Fie permitted us to use a part 
of the “miscellaneous fund” for witness fees in such cases. I place 
on record the comptroller’s decision [exhibiting], dated May 24, 1907, 
signed by the Comptroller of the Treasury himself. 

I will read certain parts of it. The letter is addressed to the 
Attorney-General. It reads: 

The facts recited in your letter call for such a construction of the law as will enable 
the Government to stamp out the barbarities recited therein if such a construction 
can, under any fair rule of construction, be given to an appropriation. I am inclined 
to adopt a most liberal construction of the appropriation last referred to— 

Which is the miscellaneous fund— 

because of the end to be accomplished by its use and because of the further fact 
that it is by its terms a miscellaneous appropriation and can only be expended under 
the direct authorization of the Attorney-General of the United States. 

We were not handicapped thereafter in prosecuting agents who 
made a business of swindling workmen. For instance, men who 
were sent to a lumber camp in Georgia after being promised indoor 


420 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


work in a furniture factory were brought from Georgia to New Y ork 
to confront the agent and testify against him. 

This resulted in the revocation of the agent’s license. Such em¬ 
ployment agents tell a workman any kind of a story to tempt him 
to enter into the contract. One Joe Marks, a Russian tailor, was 
promised tailoring work in Tennessee, but was sent to the copper 
mines. He had lately come from Russia; he had never been in a 
mine; he was afraid he could not do the work; he was driven away 
because of his worthlessness; he walked across the Blue Ridge 
Mountains without money or food; later he stole a ride on a train 
and was arrested on the State border and sent to a Georgia convict 
camp, where he committed suicide. This case is a matter of record 
in Georgia, for I am informed that the governor had Marks’s body 
exhumed to ascertain whether he did commit suicide or whether he 
had been beaten to death in the convict camp. It was decided that 
he had committed suicide, probably from despair. There are many 
sad cases which could have been prevented. And similar cases can 
be prevented if this bill becomes a law. The all-important ques¬ 
tion to the agent is his fee. He makes a commission of from $5 to 
$15 for each laborer sent out, and I know of a New York agent—a 
self-confessed criminal in his native land—whose partner testified 
that he made over $10,000 on commissions in a few months’ time. 

This agent conducted an outrageous business, but we brought 
about the revocation of his license. 

Mr. Burnett. Those labor agents are usually of their own nation¬ 
ality ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burnett. That would be a matter of police regulation that 
Congress could not control ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. This law will place these private agencies under 
federal supervision in so far as they send laborers from one State to 
another under contract of employment. Such agents will have to 
obtain a license from tlie Department of Commerce and Labor and 
can be prosecuted and punished in addition to having their licenses 
taken away from them, if this bill becomes a law. This of course 
does not apply to the sending of laborers to places within the State. 

Mr. Burnett. That may be true if it is interstate commerce. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. The comptroller said further: 

It would be a confession I am not willing to make and which ought not to be true, 
that the arm of the Government is not long enough or its purse is so short, that because 
of its lack of reach or want of adequate language in an appropriation—such want 
being ascertained through a purely technical construction of such language—human 
slavery can be reinaugurated in the United States. 

I am therefore constrained to hold under the limitation set out that the ultimate 
purpose of such evidence is or may be for use in the United States courts in the 
enforcement of the criminal laws— 

The laws referred to being the peonage statutes— 

that the appropriation for the collection of evidence heretofore cited may be used for 
the purposes indicated in your communication. 

As to immigration, it is not induced at all by the federal distribution 
bureau, but I will prove to you how it is induced. There is a way 
of stopping abnormal immigration, and upon this point I have much 
information which I shall be glad to give to this committee at another 
time. 

Mr. Burnett. Induced by whom ? 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


421 


Mrs. Quackenbos. By the steamship agents abroad. There are 
13,000 of them in Italy alone. There is generally one in every 
proyince, and he has many subagents and runners. 

Mr. Hayes. Can not you give us that information? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I shall be glad to at another time. 

Mr. Hayes. We shall be very glad to have it. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. The bill under consideration applies to dis¬ 
tribution, which is another question. I trust I have shown that 
immigration is not induced by the federal distribution bureau. I 
am confident that no evidence can be found to sustain such a rumor. 
The unconscionable steamship agent abroad, who lives in the province 
with the peasant, who tempts him to leave his native land and his 
family and often to mortgage his old home in order to secure money 
for the ticket, from which the agent will get a commission—he is the 
man who helps induce our abnormal immigration. His friend, or 
business associate, the labor agent, on this side of the water, preying 
upon the immigrant after he is admitted in a like unconscionable way, 
too frequently dominates him and defrauds him and lives at the 
expense of this his less enterprising countryman. In this miserable 
business both agents become well to do. The worst evil is not 
wrought by the immigrant, but is suffered by him. 

I will give you an instance of how these agents work together: My 
traveling companion was an American professor, a woman well known 
in this country and abroad, who speaks Italian fluently, having lived 
in Italy about seven years. In June we went up in Apennines to 
Aquila of the Abruzzi, a mountain town. In the window of a barber’s 
shop we were attracted by a large paper poster entitled “Avviso,” 
near the door of the shop. It mentioned a bank at 60 Mulberry 
street, New York City, and one Luigi Alieva & Son, bankers. 

The avviso was of striking appearance, about three by two feet 
in size, pink in color, with black lettering. Near it, posted also con¬ 
spicuously on the other side of the shop window, was a huge billboard, 
about 8 feet high, consisting of three red, white, and blue paper signs, 
exactly similar, pasted one above the other, advertising the steerage 
and seeond-class passage rates and the sailings of the steamers from 
Naples to New York of the Hamburg-American Line. Both signs 
were in Italian, and copies, identical, are hereto annexed, marked 
“Exhibit 1” (avviso) and “Exhibit 2” (sailing list). 

The avviso, translated, is as follows: 

The undersigned desires to call the attention of all emigrants for North America to 
the fact that he has in New York, U. S. A., a banking house; further that he attends 
to the shipping of goods or the sending of money to all parts of the world, that he con¬ 
ducts the business of a notary, and sells tickets for all steamship and railroad lines. 

At the same office there are at the disposition of the public four young men very 
well acquainted with the city and the suburbs, who are always ready to furnish to 
emigrants all information of which they have need, acting as interpreter for them at 
the wharf at the battery and accompanying them to any place of work. 

The said bank as a guaranty to all has a deposit with the State of New York of the 
sum of 75,000 lire in addition to other property to the value of 115,000 lire. 

The undersigned by reason of the trustworthy character of his firm and the guarantees 
offered hopes to be honored by the business of the Italian emigrants. 

Underneath the Hamburg-American announcement was an orange- 
colored paper, a yard long, printed in large, black type, as follows 
[Exhibit 7]: 

Rappresentanti sig. Salvatore Giannangeli; Presso il salone Italia, Corso V. E. N. 104 
(Palazzo Crolina), Aquila. 


422 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


(A copy, identical, is annexed, marked “ Exhibit 3.”) 

Several days prior to June 30 we had read a government edict, 
which was posted on the wall of the general post-office at Aquila, 
issued by the royal commissarrato dell emigrazione, Roma, April, 
1909. 

It advised all Italians against emigrating to the United States, 
and, translated, the edict is as follows [original annexed, Exhibit 4]: 

In three months only of this year there have departed for the United States more 
than 100,000 Italians, while the work actually in progress is not sufficient to give 
occupation to such a vast crowd of workmen. Many of those who are already on the 
ground are still without work and are in a pitiable condition. Our emigrants are 
advised in the strongest terms not to go to the United States where they, on their 
arrival, might very likely fail to find work. 

We had heard of this Aquila agent from the peasants higher up in 
the mountains whom we had visited before going to Aquila. As the 
avviso in the barber shop was decidedly inconsistent with the gov¬ 
ernment edict we called upon Giannangeli and asked him many 
questions. My friend who interpreted has made affidavit before the 
United States consul in Rome. It relates the whole transaction. I 
will quote from it: 

I started by saying that the lady with me was writing a story about emigration and 
wanted to know all the little details as to what he was going to do with the people going 
to America. I asked: “Do many of them go over?” 

“Barber. For a long while, no; but business is picking up again [nodding and 
winking], 

“Question. The signora (meaning Mrs. Quackenbos) wants to know how it is done. 
She wants to talk with some one who helps laborers to go over—some labor agent or 
some one. 

“Barber (interrupting). I’m the representante. 

“Question. Are you the representante just for the steamship company for the people 
who go over? 

“Barber. Of the steamship company, but I help the people to go over. 

“Question. Do they go in very great numbers? 

“Barber. They used to, and they are beginning to again, but it was stopped for 
awhile. See here.” 

Then the barber stepped to the back of the shop and removed from against the wall 
a second huge 8-foot billboard of the Hamburg-American sailings, like the red, white, 
and blue one out on the street [Exhibit 2 is one-third of it]. He showed me that com¬ 
pletely hidden behind it was one of the edicts issued by the Italian Government 
exactly similar to the one which we had seen in the post-office as aforesaid [Exhibit 4]. 

“Question. What sort of a thing is that? (I pointed to the words ‘It. Commis- 
sariato dell Emigrazione.’) 

“Barber. Oh, that comes from the government people. 

“Question. What about that [pointing at the avviso at the door]. 

“Barber. Oh, those are the people in New York. That’s the bank there. 

“Question. What’s it all about. Can the signora have one of these [pointing to the 
avviso]. 

“Barber. Yes, yes; delighted. I’m the representante of these people, too.” 

I then said: “ The signora would like to see all the papers she can in connection 
with this business. She wants to know all about it.” 

He answered: “I have a book which has all the items, all the different towns 
in all the various parts of the United States, and all the railroad fares to these towns.” 

I said to Giannangeli: “ How about this banker? What have you to do with banking 
in New York City?” 

He said that he was also a labor agent, and that it was better for me and my friend 
to see the banker in New York as some of the people were too poor to pay their passage 
and Alieva could fix it all right. He brought out a book and two letters which my 
friend translated. I felt sorry for the man when he innocently let me copy from them 
a letter, dated June 14 [reads]: “ Remember that no agent or subagent in Italy possesses 
this book.” I said: “What book?” He answered, “I have a book which has all 
the items, all the different towns in the various parts of the United States, and all 
the railroad fares to these towns.” 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


423 


Mr. Goldfogle. Published by whom? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I do not know. Perhaps it is published by the 
steamship or railroad companies. The printer is Martin B. Brown 
& Co., New York City. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Did you make any investigation upon which to 
base your opinion that the steamship companies were publishing 
the book ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I made a slight investigation. The contents 
of the book are described in the affidavit. I will read it: 

He then went to a cabinet and brought out a yellow-covered book about the size 
of an ordinary pamphlet of from 250 to 300 pages; we noticed that the entire book con¬ 
tained, page after page, alphabetical lists of (as he said) all the small towns in the 
United States with their respective counties and States, together with six or seven 
columns of figures placed opposite the names of the towns, etc., and extending across 
the entire page. We could not examine the book very closely without exciting 
suspicion, so I said: 

‘ ‘ Can the signora have this, too? 

“Barber. Oh, no; this was just sent to me. 

“Question. Have you any more copies? 

“Barber. No; 1 have just one, but the signora could learn a lot if she could stay 
here long enough, so could use this book of mine.” 

Mrs. Quackenbos then said she would get one of the books, and asked if she could 
copy the name; this I translated to the barber, and he acquiesced, saying that the 
bank would send her a copy if requested. 

The words on the cover of the book copied by Mrs. Quackenbos were as follows: 

“Joint tariff No. 13. Immigrant fares from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and 
Baltimore, in effect May, 1906, subject to change. Immigrant clearing house com¬ 
mittee, L. P. Farmer, chairman. H. C. Blye, general agent, 143 Liberty street, 
New York City, U. S. A. Copyright, 1906, by L. P. Farmer. Martin B. Brown & 
Co., printers, New York City.” 

The letter goes on to say, “and therefore you will not allow it 
(meaning the book) to be seen by no one.” I saw a similar book in 
two other places in Italy, and in Sparta, Greece. 

The letter further says: 

You will make use of it (the book) exclusively for your own business and for the 
individuals who will come over at times to my bank. 

It further says: 

As I wrote you in my other letter, jobs go well for all those who arrive not too late. 

Write to me assuring me that you have received as much as-and tell me all that 

which may be likely to interest me. 

Both letters were signed “Luigi Alieva” in the same handwriting. 

Another letter, dated a few days before, said: 

You will inform friends and acquaintances that the jobs there are many and good 
of every kind, and that therefore those who intend to come should not lose time if they 
do not want to do it too late. 

Mr. Burnett. Did that letter pass between the same parties ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir. 1 asked the Italian agent to give 
me the card of this man in New York, and he handed me all of these 
cards [exhibiting about 15 cards]. I have a lot more which he gave 
me and some envelopes. In all, he gave me 36 business envelopes 
advertising the Banca Luigi Alieva & Figli, 60 Mulberry street, New 
York City [exhibit]; 26 of the banker’s business cards reading, 
“Luigi & Figli, 60 Mulberry street, New York City, United States of 
America [exhibit]; 1 of the advertisements of the Hamburg-American 
Steamship Company [Kxhibit 4]; 2 of the avvisi [Exhibit 1]; several 
of the orange-colored announcements representing himself as agent 
(repsesentante) [Exhibit 7]. 


424 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


When I returned to New York I found through the commis¬ 
sioner of licenses that Alieva was a regularly licensed labor agent 
doing business under the name Luigi Alieva & Son and Komano. I 
believe the banking part of the business is done under the name of 
Alieva & Son. On the letter heads or printed circular of the Ham¬ 
burg-American Line which he gave me the Aquila agent appears as 
agent for that line. The name of Alieva, the New York banker and 
labor agent, appears in the body of the printed letter. I think it a 
sad fact that such a great company as the Hamburg-American 
should employ men of this character. And the law we are discussing 
is designed to put all such agents under federal supervision. The 
steamship company appears to indorse these men as their agents, for 
they permit them to sell their tickets. 

Mr. Burnett. Appears in what capacity ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I will read from the printed letter head. It is 
in Italian, I will give you the translation. I should not care to have 
these documents made public yet. 

Mr. Hayes. We can have all the documents printed and hold them 
back until Mr. Williams has made his investigation. The stuff you 
are giving us is very valuable. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What evidence have you obtained that the Ham¬ 
burg-American Line directly or indirectly caused these circulars to 
be printed ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. This is their letter head [exhibiting]. This 
Italian agent had a large number of such letter heads, or circulars, 
whatever they may be called. 

Mr. Hayes. With the same reference. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Have you found other letters in other ship offices ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I saw the clearing-house book also in Geneva, 
in Turin, Italy, and in Sparta, Greece. The steamship agents have 
a large round sign outside of their offices generally with a ship painted 
on it and the word “agent” in brass letters under the name of the line. 
I saw such signs in all countries. There were such in the Abruzzi 
Mountains. 

Mr. Burnett. At what point was that ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. At Aquila, Italy, in the Abruzzi Mountains. 
It is a little south of the central part of Italy, I believe. I will place 
on record this affidavit, which will give you all the information you 
desire. 

Here is the letter head, or circular, of the Hamburg-American Line, 
with blanks for the sailing dates to be filled in. On the first page is 
a picture of a ship plying the ocean at full speed, underneath which, 
in large type, is the following: 

Hamburg-Amerika Line. Vapori, Celeressimi Germanesi. 

Next came a list of sailings, etc., with blanks to be filled in (see 
Exhibit 10), and below in large type are the words: 

Uffici Di Rappresentantza Aquilla, Corso, Vitt. Em. N. 104, Palazzi Crolina, Aquilla. 

On the lower half of the same page is printed a letter, which trans¬ 
lated into English is as follows (see Exhibit 10): 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


425 


Aquilla, -, 190 —. 

Respected Friend: Having just been informed that you have decided to depart 
for America, I pray you to do me the pleasure of coming to me as representative of 
the Hamburg Company, if you desire to travel with the large and swift steamers of 
the company named, highly prized by all and preferred especially because they offer 
every convenience and means of safety. 

Since there exists a great crowd in these months, I recommend to you to give me your 
order to obtain at once your passport. Regarding the making out of the documents 
and the securing of the passport, I place myself at your disposition, as also for the neces¬ 
sary information for the tribunale and for the Milla Osta in this prefettura. 

I assure you that I will use all the possible diligence and I will see that the society 
does the same in such a method that you will make the trip quickly, well, and with 
safety, aided in this also by Signor Luigi Alieva e Figli, who have in New York, at 
60 Mulberry street, a banking place and in addition have, for the use of emigrants, 
employees appointed, who are able to secure for them all information and assistance. 

With respect, the representative, 


Grannangeli Salvatore. 


There is no printing on the inside pages of the sheet, but on the 
back side of the sheet, page 4, there is printing arranged so that the 
sheet can be folded and addressed like an envelope, and when folded 
reads [Exhibit 11]: 


Aquilla—Rappresentante Giannangeli Salvatore, Aquilla, Hamburg-Amerikan 
Line. Compagnia di Nangazione a Vapore Amburghere, Amerika. 

Ill Mo. Signor,-. To Mr.-. 

The business envelope of the Mulberry street banker reads: 

Mr.---•, 60 Mulberry street, New York City, U. S. of Amerika. Care of 

Banca, Luigi Alieva e Figli. 

Mr. Burnett. What was the date of that letter? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. This was not sent; this is a blank. My in¬ 
terpreter's affidavit is dated August 4, 1909. Our conversation with 
the Aquila agent took place in June. We made many notes which 
we framed into this affidavit later. 

You will see, gentlemen, that it is the private money-making 
agencies that induce immigration, not the federal bureau of which 
the peasants in Europe do not know. Most of the opposition to the 
federal agency comes from those who are directly or indirectly con¬ 
nected with these money-making concerns. The welfare of our 
nation and of these alien strangers whom we admit into our country 
demand that the private money-making agencies be placed under 
federal supervision. If they do their business honestly let them make 
their fees; if they conduct their business dishonestly let them be 
prosecuted and punished and let their licenses be taken from them. 
There are 800 agents in New York City and there are many in all the 
other large cities, but of course I do not say that they are all corrupt. 

Mr. Burnett. Section 7 provides for obtaining a license in order 
to engage in business, but unless that was interstate commerce, I do 
not think Congress would have any authority ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I think the section should be amended and 
the license be required only when laborers are sent under contract 
from one State to another. 

Mr. Burnett. The section does not say so. 

Mr. Hayes. They have the authority to limit that. 

Mr. Burnett. That would be a matter for police regulation. 

Mr. Hayes. An agent receiving aliens from abroad landed in this 
country should come under the federal statutes. 

Mr. Goldfogle. If he was in conspiracy with some one else. 






426 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Hayes. Yes, sir. Of course we can reach them. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. But they could send a laborer from New York 
to Albany without such license ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. Section 7 of what bill ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Of this bill. It says “That no person, firm, 
or corporation shall open, operate, or maintain a private employment 
agency for hire of aliens/’ etc. 

Mr. Burnett. In those broad terms, I think that would come 
under the facts pointed out in the Keller case. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I agree with you. 

Mr. Burnett. This requirement of license by the agent—you can 
not say there was a conspiracy to get the license; that would be too 
remote. This section would have to be considerably changed. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I would split up this bill into two bills. In 
one bill I would provide for the enlargement of the scope of the 
federal distribution bureau; in the other I would deal with the federal 
license and provide for the prosecution and punishment of the agent 
when he violates the law. Labor agents are constantly violating the 
law. 

Mr. Burnett. Generally? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir; I could get the names and addresses 
of the agents in New York City who have done so, and of some who, I 
believe, are now so doing. Probably Mr. Bennet has such informa¬ 
tion now. Many of these agents run a banking business as well. 

Mr. Bennet. I have not it now, but it could be easily procured. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Here [exhibiting] is a report made to me by a 
special agent of the Department of Justice which tells of the cases 
brought by that department against certain New York labor agents. 

Mr. PIayes. Can you appear before the committee to-morrow 
morning ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. There is only five minutes before the hour of 
adjournment and I therefore suggest that we adjourn to meet 
to-morrow at 10.30 o’clock a. m. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned.) 

(The affidavit made by Esther Boise Van Deman before Kenneth 
Stuart Patton, vice-consul at Rome, Italy, for the United States, 
from which Mrs. Quackenbos quoted at different times, reads in full 
as follows:) 

Kingdom or Italy, Province of City of Rome , ss: 

Esther Boise Van Deman, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

I am an American, professor of Latin and Archaeology in the United States, and 
now reside at No. 12 Piazza dell’ Esquilino, Rome, Italy. I am familiar with the 
Italian language and can speak it fluently. 

On June 30, 1909, in the evening of that day, in company with Mary Grace Quack¬ 
enbos, of New York City, I was in the town of Aquila, in the Abruzzi Mountains, 
Province of Aquila, Italy. While waiting at the Hotel d’ Italia fora train leaving 
Aquila that night, we were attracted by a large paper poster, entitled “AVVISO,” 
posted near the door of a barber shop across the street; it mentioned a bank at 60 
Mulberry street, New York City; banker, Luigi Alieva and Son. 

The avviso was of striking appearance, about 3 by 2 feet in size, pink in color, with 
black lettering. Near it, posted also conspicuously on the other side of the shop 
window, was a huge billboard, about 8 feet high, consisting of three red, white, and 
blue paper signs exactly similar, pasted one above the other, advertising the steerage 
and second-class passage rates and the sailings of steamers from Naples to New York 
of the Hamburg-American Line. Both signs were in Italian, and copies, identical, 
are hereto annexed, marked “Exhibit I.— Avviso,” and “Exhibit II— Sailing list.” 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


427 


The avviso translated is as follows: 

“The undersigned desires to call the attention of all emigrants for North America 
to the fact that he has in New York, U. S. A., a banking house; further, that he attends 
to the shipping of goods or the sending of money to all parts of the world; that he con¬ 
ducts the business of a notary, and sells tickets for all steamship and railroad lines. 

“At the same office there are at the disposition of the public four young men, very 
well acquainted with the city and the suburbs, who are always ready to furnish to 
emigrants all information of which they have need, acting as interpreter for them at 
the wharf at the Battery, and accompanying them to any place of work. 

“The said bank as a guaranty to all has a deposit with the State of New York of 
the sum of 75,000 lire, in addition to other property to the value of 115,000 lire. 

“The undersigned, by reason of the trustworthy character of his firm and the guar¬ 
antees offered, hopes to be honored (by the business) of the Italian emigrants.” 

Underneath the Hamburg-American announcement was an orange-colored paper, 
a yard long, printed in large black type, as follows (Exhibit VII): 

“Rappresentanti Sig. Salvatore Giannangeli. Presso il Salone Italia, Corso V. E. 
N. 104 (Palazzo Crolina) Aquila.” 

A copy, identical, is annexed, marked'“Exhibit III.” 

Several days prior to June 30 we had read a government edict which was posted 
on the wall of the general post-office at Aquila, issued by the Royal Commissariato 
dell’Emigrazione, Roma, April, 1909. It advised all Italians against emigrating to 
the United States; and translated the edict is as follows (original annexed “Exhibit 
IV”): 

“In three months only of this year there have departed for the United States more 
than 100,000 Italians, while the work actually in progress is not sufficient to give 
occupation to such a vast crowd of workmen. 

“Many of those who are already on the ground are still without work and are in a 
pitiable condition. 

“Our emigrants are advised in the strongest terms not to go to the United States, 
where they on their arrival might very likely fail to find work.” 

Since the Avviso at the barber shop was decidedly inconsistent with the govern¬ 
ment edict in the post-office, Mrs. Quackenbos, who was at the time investigating 
and writing upon immigrant questions, suggested that we call upon the barber, 
Giannangeli, and ask him concerning his emigration business. Mrs. Q. decided that 
we could gain more truthful information if we did not tell our names, but said that 
we knew of a cotton plantation in the United States—in Arkansas—in which a Mr. 
Frank was interested, and that if labor could be imported she (Mrs. Q.) would like to 
find out in all its details how it could be done, that she might send the information 
to the said Frank in America. 

We entered the shop. The barber said he spoke no English and Mrs. Q. speaks no 
Italian. Therefore, pursuant to the questions put to me by Mrs. Q. in English, in 
the presence of the barber, I carried on the following conversation with him in Italian. 

I started by saying that the lady with me was writing a story about emigration and 
wanted to know all the little details as to what he was going to do with the people 
going to America. I asked: “Do many of them go over?” 

“Barber. For a long while, no; but business is picking up again [nodding and 
winking], 

“Question. The signora [meaning Mrs. Q.] wants to know how it is done—wants to 
talk with some one who helps laborers to go over—some labor agent, or some one. 

“Barber (interrupting). I’m the representante. 

“Question. Are you the representante just for the steamship company or for the 
people who go over? 

“Barber. Of the steamship company, but I help the people go over. 

“Question. Do they go in very great numbers? 

“Barber. They used to, and they are beginning to again, but it was stopped for a 
while. See here.” 

Then he stepped to the back of the shop and removed from against the wall a second 
huge 8-foot bill board of the Hamburg-American sailings, like the red, white, and blue 
one out on the street. (Exhibit II is one-third of it.) He showed us that completely 
hidden behind it was one of the edicts issued by the Italian Government exactly 
similar to the one which we had seen in the post-office, as aforesaid. (Exhibit IV.) 

“Question. What kind of a thing is that? 

“Barber. Oh, that comes from the government people. 

“Question [pointing to the avviso near the door]. What about that? 

“Barber. Oh, those are the people in New York. That’s the bank there. 

“Question. What’s it all about? Can the signora have one of these? [pointing 
to the avviso]. 

“Barber, Yes, yes—delighted. I’m the representante of those people, too. 


428 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


I then said: “The signora would like to see all the papers she can in connection 
with this business; she wants to know all about it.” 

He answered: “I have a book which has all the items—all the different towns in 
all the various parts of the United States and all the railroad fares to these towns.” 

He then went over to a cabinet and brought out a yellow-covered book about the 
size of an ordinary pamphlet of from 250 to 300 pages. We noticed that entire book 
contained, page after page, alphabetical lists of (as he said) all the small towns in 
the United States, with their respective counties and States, together with 6 or 7 
columns of figures placed opposite the names of the towns, etc., and extending across 
the entire page. We could not examine the book very closely without creating 
suspicion, so I said: 

“Can the signora have this, too? 

“Barber. Oh, no; this was just sent to me. 

“Question. Have you any more copies? 

“Barber. No; I have just one; but the signora could learn a lot if she could stay 
here long enough. She could use this book of mine.” 

Mrs. Q. then said she would get one of the books and asked if she could copy the 
name. This I translated to the barber and he acquiesced, saying the bank would 
send her a copy if requested. The words on the book cover which Mrs. Q. copied 
were as follows: 

“ Joint Tariff No. 13. Immigrant fares from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, 
and Baltimore. In effect May, 1906, subject to change. Immigrant Clearing House 
Committee. L. P. Farmer, chairman; H. C. Blye, general agent; 143 Liberty street, 
New York City, U. S. A. Copyright, 1906, by L. P. Farmer. Martin B. Brown & Co., 
printers, N. Y. C.” 

Resuming the conversation, I said: 

“If people want to get laborers to work for them in the United States, how would 
they go about it? 

“Barber. They could send over the tickets? 

“Question. How would we get the tickets? 

“Barber. Go to that bank [pointing to the avvisso]. You would pay the money 
there and they would send the tickets to me, and I would send over the people.” 

I then told him of the Mr. Frank, the southern planter in Arkansas, United States, 
who wanted contract laborers to work on his cotton plantation; that he was about to 
start a new enterprise, and that in traveling through the mountains we had seen 
what good workers the Italians were, to which he replied that the Italians were fine 
laborers. 

“But I don’t see how you agents send them over,” I insisted; and he then repeated 
what he had formerly said about sending the tickets in advance through the bank, 
saying that some of the people were too poor to pay their passage. Then he asked for 
Frank’s address and I answered that all his mail would goto New York, to 156 Leonard 
street, and would be forwarded to him from there. He replied: 

“It is better for Frank to see the bank or the bank to take his address and write 
him all information.” 

I told him that all matters would have to be made very plain to Frank, and in order 
that the signora should make no mistake he had better tell her exactly what she was 
to tell Frank, and then he (the barber) could write the same to the bankers, who could 
confirm it and also write it to Frank. I said: “Please repeat what you want Frank 
to send, so there will be no misunderstanding.” 

The Barber said: “He must send the tickets—‘the biglietti’—and the bank will 
explain it all to the signora. Mr. Frank pays only for tickets used, and so can not 
lose any money. 

“Question. Anything else? Is it necessary to send any money to show at the New 
York landing place? 

“Barber. A little money for the expenses of the voyage (spese di viaggio). 

“Question. Is that all? Of course you have to find the people. Ho you pay the 
expenses yourself or does the steamship company pay you? 

“Barber. No, the steamship company doesn’t pay. I paj 
myself. 

“Question. But we’re inexperienced; how much ought we to tell Frank to allow 
you for your trouble? 

“Barber. A little money for my expenses, what the gentleman wishes. 

“Question. But how much do you think fair? 

“Barber. For men, about 10 lire each. 

“Question. Ho you send women? 

“Barber. Yes; women and entire families. 


pay everything of that kind 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 429 

“Question. I forgot to ask about children. Perhaps Frank could make use of 
children? What about them? 

“Barber. Oh, yes. One can always use them somehow, and they won’t cost much, 
they’re just trifles, we’ll throw them in for nothing. 

“Question. Very little children (piccoli bambini )? 

“Barber (shrugging his shoulders). Oh, yes; you can use them for a good many 
things. 

“Question. Now, the signora asks, will you write all this down for her?” 

The barber then wrote out in Italian the following (the Italian writing is annexed 
hereto marked “Exhibit V”), and translated it is: 

“Tickets—and the bank will explain it all to the signora. 

“Tickets—and a little money to pay the expenses of the voyage (spese di viaggio). 

“Women and entire families (which he underlined). 

“10 lire per person.” 

Then after I had asked: “By September and October could you find a lot of la¬ 
borers?” he replied very enthusiastically, “Yes, yes,” and added to the paper the 
words: “by September and October.” 

“Question. Could you furnish 100 laborers? 

“Barber. Yes, yes, yes! 

“Question. Now to get these 100, do you get them yourself or will you have other 
agents to help you? 

“Barber. Other represen tante! No, I wouldn’t want to ask other represen tan te! 
I’ll do it all myself—you know it isn’t allowed! (h proibito). I alone can do it! 

“Question. Well, then, will it not take you a lot of time? 

“Barber. Oh, I can do it [winking and nodding his head]. 

“Question. The signora asks about that sign over there [pointing to government 
edict]. Won’t that frighten people? 

“Barber. No, No! That is finished (b finito).” 

This was said angrily, and he then walked across the room and struck the paper 
with his hand, adding, “It hasn’t any value! [with gestures]. 

“Question. Could the signora have the paper [meaning the government paper]? ” 

But he did not seem to hear this and walked hurriedly across the room and got out 
of the cabinet a collection of other papers, as follows: 

Thirty-six business envelopes advertising the Banca Luigi Alieva e Figli, 60 Mul¬ 
berry street, New York City (exhibit). 

Twenty-six of the “bankers” business cards reading: Luigi Alieva e Figli, 60 
Mulberry street, N. Y. City, United States of America (Exhibit VI). 

One of the advertisements of the Hamburg-American Steamship Company (Ex¬ 
hibit IV). 

Two of the avvisi (Exhibit I). 

Several of his own orange-colored announcements representing himself as agent 
(representante) (Exhibit VII). 

1 continued: “But that government sign. Frank, I’m afraid, will be scared 
when they know about it in America.” 

“ Barber (with gestures). Oh, they know about it in America all right! That thing 
was sent out to me two months ago, but here I have letters that you can read which 
show that it has no value any more. It is all changed now! That is finished (b 
finito). 

“Question. But what if Frank doesn’t know it is finished? 

“Barber (angrily). But I tell you that it is finished. Here are the letters from the 
bank—they say [referring to one of the letters] work is now abundant and good and 
‘be sure you hurry them over or they won’t get the best chances.’” 

He then showed us the two letters from the “Banker” Allera, dated June 7 and 
June 14, respectively. They were written in Italian; I read them through with the 
barber’s help and then translated to Mrs. Quackenbos certain parts while she copied . 
the Italian from the original. The part she copied is translated in substance, as 
follows (her copies from the original are annexed, marked “Exhibit VIII” and 
“Exhibit IX”): 

“You will inform friends and acquaintances that” [word not clear] in the juris¬ 
diction that here—the jobs—there are of them many and good of every kind—and 
that, therefore, those who intend to come, that they should not lose time if they do 
not want to do it too late.” 

The other letter, dated June 14, read: 

“Remember that no agent or subagent in Italy possesses this book” [the barber 
said this referred to the yellow book “Joint Tariff No. 13 of the Immigrant Clearing 
House Committee” hereinbefore mentioned]. “And that, therefore, you will not 
allow it to be seen by no one and that you will make use of it exclusively for your own 


430 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


business and for the individuals who will come over at times to my bank. As I wrote 
you in my other [letter] jobs go well for all those who arrive not too late. Write to 
me assuring me that you have received as much as (l’unio—expression not clear) and 
tell me all that which may be likely to interest me.” 

Both letters were signed “Luigi Allevi,” in the same handwriting. 

I noticed that the “banker” used the personal pronouns “tu,” “te,” and “tua,” 
meaning “you” and “yours” in intimate discourse; the letter began “Caro Amico,” 
which called for “tu” in the body of the writing, so I said: “Oh, he uses ‘tu’—you 
know him well then, don’t you?” 

“Barber: Oh yes; he’s my intimate friend.” Then I pointed to the government 
sign again and said: “But that sign over there, won’t the people be afraid to go when 
they read that?” 

“Barber (shrugged his shoulders): Oh, it was sent out to me by the Government 
and we were ordered to put it up—and I put it up—but the billboard has been in 
front of it all the time.” 

By this time the man was in a rage about the government paper, and I said, “ Can 
the signora have it for Mr. Frank?” Thereupon, he angrily tore it from the wall and 
exclaimed: “Yes; that’s done with!” He left the upper right-hand corner of the 
paper still sticking to the wall. Then Mrs. Q. told me to ask: 

“ Do you have correspondence with the steamship company, too?” 

“Barber: Yes; I correspond with them, too. Here are some of their letter heads” 
[crossing over to the cabinet again]. 

He then gave us several printed circulars of the Hamburg-American Line. [One is 
annexed, marked “Exhibit X.”] 

On the first page is a picture of a ship plying the ocean at full speed, underneath 
which, in large type, is the following: 

“ Hamburg-Amerika Line—Vapori Celeressimi Germanesi.” 

Next comes a list of ship sailings, etc., with blanks to be filled in (see Exhibit X), 
and below, in large type, are the words: 

“Uffici Di Rappresentantza—Aquila—Corso Yelt. Em. n. 104,Palazzi Crolina,, 
Aquila.” 

On the lower half of the same page is printed a letter, which, translated into English, 
is a s follows (see Exhibit X): 

Aquila,-, 190—. 


Respected Friend: Having just been informed that you have decided to depart 
for America, I pray you to do me the pleasure of coming to me, as representative of 
the Hamburg Company, if you desire to travel with the large and swift steamers of 
the company named, highly prized by all, and preferred especially because they 
offer every convenience and means of safety. 

Since there exists a great crowd in these months, I recommend you to give me your 
order to obtain at once your passport. Regarding the making out of the documents 
and the securing of the passport, I place myself at your disposition, as also for the 
necessary information for the tribunale and for the milla-osta in this prefettura. 

I assure you that I will use all the possible diligence and I will see that the society 
does the same in such a method that you will make your trip quickly, well, and with 
safety, aided in this also by Signori Luegi Alieva e Figli, who have in New York, at 60 
Mulberry street, a banking place, and in addition have for the use of emigrants 
employees appointed who are able to secure for them all information and assistance. 

With respect, the representative, 

Giannangeli Salvatore. 


There is no printing on the inside pages of the sheet, but on the back side of the sheet, 
page 4, there is printing, arranged so that the sheet can be folded and addressed like 
an envelope, and when so folded reads (Exhibit XI): 

“Aquila—Rappresentante, Giannangeli Salvatore—Aquila. 

‘ ‘ Hamburg-Amerika-Linie. 

“Compagnia di Navigazione a Yapore Amburghese, Amerika. 

“Ill. mo Signor (To Mr.)-, 

< < _ >> 


The business envelope of the Mulberry street banker reads: 

“Mr.-, 60 Mulberry street, New York City, U. S. of America. (Care of 

Banca Luigi Alieva e Figli.)” 

This barber labor agent was so excited over the prospect of a large order that he 
said to me as we left, “I will get a horse and wagon and go out in the country to¬ 
morrow and begin to get the men.” This I informed Mrs. Q. of after we had left the 
shop, and she therefore insisted upon going back and stopping the agent from so doing. 






HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


431 


Upon our return I told him that the signora said he need not begin upon the work 
yet; that he must wait a month or so until she could get the news to America, but that 
she would give him two months’ notice before the date for which Frank wanted the 
labor. I asked: “Can you get it all done in two months? 

“Barber. Yes; that is enough; I can do it. 

“Question. Can you get a whole hundred? 

“Barber. Yes. 

^ Question. Of course this isn’t new business for you then; you’ve had practice? 

“ Barber (with knowing smile). Oh, yes; I have had plenty of practice.” [He took 
out of his pocket a book with the names of people he would canvass in the adjoining 
towns.] r J s 

“Question. But the signora says perhaps Mr. Frank may be anxious to have from 
200 to 300. Can you get as many as that? 

“Barber. Yes. I can get as many as she wants, and in that case I would call in 
some of the other agents to help me, though I don’t do it regularly, as it’s forbidden.” 

The above I had translated in part to Mrs. Quackenbos throughout my interview 
with the barber, and she, in turn, suggested to me the above line of questioning. 
We left Aquila at 11.30 that night, and while in the train I reviewed the whole con¬ 
versation with Giannangeli from beginning to end, and Mrs. Quackenbos wrote down 
in English what I told to her in detail. 

Esther Boise Van Deman. 

Sworn to before me this fourth day of August, 1909, anno Domini. 

[seal.] Kenneth Stuart Patton, 

Vice and Deputy Consul of the 
United States of America at Rome , Italy. 


Committee on Immigration, 

House of Representatives, 

Wednesday , March 30, 1910. 

The committee met at 11.05 o’clock a. m. 

Present, Messrs. Howell (chairman), Bennet, Hayes, Elvins, Bur¬ 
nett, Sabath, O’Connell, and Goldfogle. 

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY GRACE QUACKENBOS—Continued. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Quackenbos, will you proceed? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Mr. Chairman, I now resume my argument in 
favor of a more thorough system of federal distribution of immigrants, 
and urge upon you gentlemen the importance of reporting favorably 
and unanimously, I hope, this distribution bill. I urge upon you, as 
members of this Immigration Committee, to see to it that this bill 
becomes a law now, while the need for such practical and remedial 
legislation is so great. The question is, Shall distribution be carried 
on intelligently and equitably through the forces of our National Gov¬ 
ernment, which has no concern with money-making interests, but acts 
solely for the good of the nation, or shall we permit labor agents of for¬ 
eign tongue to come over and establish in our large cities purely 
money-making distribution concerns, such as I described yesterday. 
It is a matter of so much “per head” with them, and because of the 
fee which they hope to get they are tempted to deceive their ignorant 
and less enterprising countrymen. They cheat and defraud those 
who are already here, and they prey upon the new arrivals as soon as 
they land. 

I will give you a few further facts as to these labor agents in New 
York City. I will refresh my memory from a report which was filed 
in the Department of Justice January 15, 1908, a report made to me 
by one of the assistants engaged in this work while I was directing 



432 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


work in the South. It reviews some of the cases concerning employ¬ 
ment agencies which were connected with peonage complaints. 
Briefly I will give the names of agents whose licenses were revoked, 
and I will explain why. An Italian, Pasquale Avallone, had an 
office at No. 96 Bayard street, New York City. There were many 
complaints against him. I will mention two having to do with 
Roumanians and Turks. On September 2, 1907, Peter Kotez, Peter 
Wojvodizsan, George Czaran, and four other Roumanians, arrived in 
this country. Three days later they were taken by an English- 
speaking friend to the employment office of Millitisch & Wilck, who 
charged them $4 each as fee for giving them employment in Colorado 
where they wished to go to join some friends. The next day Milli¬ 
tisch & Wilck turned the men over to Avallone, receiving $2 per 
man from the first agent, and giving in return a written receipt 
agreeing to send the men to Colorado. On September 17 complaint 
reached me that the men had been sent to Troy, N. Y., and had 
returned to this city. 

They had paid to go to Colorado. 

Mr. Burnett. They had paid their fare to go to Colorado ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. No; they had paid $4 each as a fee for obtain¬ 
ing employment in Colorado. 

Mr. Sabath. To the agent ? 

Mi’s. Quackenbos. Yes, sir [reading from the report]: 

I immediately sent a special agent for these men, and I found that they had been 
hurriedly shipped off, because they knew we were after them, to Cuba, N. Y., a 

E lace near Buffalo. I dispatched a special employee, who brought three of them 
ack to the city. 

Several hearings were held before the commissioner of licenses, and 
on October 1, 1907, Avallone’s license was revoked. 

Another complaint against Avallone was brought by 15 Turks, 
who had been in the country but a few days. They were approached 
by a Greek runner, Nichitatis, who found that one of the Turks 
spoke Greek. The runner represented that he could procure employ¬ 
ment for them in Canada, if each paid the fare of $13.72. To this 
the Turks agreed. The Greek runner took the Turks to this Italian 
labor agent, where they met a bookkeeper, Casseleides, who con¬ 
firmed what Nichitatis had said. 

Mr. Burnett. Nichitatis was a runner for the agent ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. A runner for the Italian agent; yes, sir. Casselei- 
dis, Avallone’s bookkeeper, after figuring up the total of 15 times $13.72 
showed it to Avallone, who sent the men to a nearby cafe to pay over 
the money to Nichitatis. All the money the men had was the sum of 
$93. The leader of the Turks was one Ismael Ibraim, who alone 
spoke Greek, and who informed me that he had paid over the money 
in lump. The men were then placed upon a wagon and given con¬ 
tracts which showed their destination to be Flushing, N. Y., to which 
place the fare was 5 or 10 cents. Immediately on the revocation of 
Avallone’s license, his manager, one Pellegrino continued the employ¬ 
ment business at the same address, Avallone’s clerk and bookkeeper, 
Casseleidis. Sigmund Schwartz, First street, New York, sent a num¬ 
ber of Russian Jews to work in a sawmill in Florida. When they 
reached Florida the work proved to be in a turpentine camp. Schwartz 
had promised them land on easy terms, as well as wages, where they 
later could bring their families.' There being a dearth of immigrants 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


433 


available, by means of such a story lie urged fathers of families to go 
down to Florida. One man had a home in New York and his children 
in school, but he took Schwartz’s advice, seeking to better his condition. 
They were all held in an alleged condition of peonage. I will not go 
into that part now, but they came back through charity, bruised 
and beaten, and with the fever. The license of Schwartz was revoked 
on the charges we brought. 

Another case was that of Louis R. Robinson. He carried on 
The Southern Immigration Agency in New York City. He sent 
Germans down to Newnan, Ga., telling them they were going to 
work in a furniture factory—indoor work. They were worked in a 
lumber mill, out of doors. Peonage was alleged. V' e presented the 
facts before the commissioner of licenses. Robinson’s license was 
revoked. 

Martin Greenfield, 112 Madison street, shipped 33 Greeks to North 
Platte, Nebr., on two occasions, promising work in railroad construction. 
He took from each man a fee of $4; said that transportation would be free, 
and that food would be furnished for the long j ourney when they reached 
Chicago. No food was supplied, causing great hardships, for many were 
without funds. The laborers were not sent to North Platte, but to 
a place many miles distant, and at the end of two weeks, when wages 
were due, $15, cost of transportation, was deducted from each man’s 
earnings, leaving them sums ranging from 79 cents to 15 cents. In 
both instances the man who was engaged to go as interpreter was 
told when he reached Nebraska that no interpreter was needed. 
Therefore he had to do, and actually did, the ordinary pick and 
shovel work. After great hardship three or four men finally got 
back to New York, bringing with them a petition for help, written 
in Greek and signed by those who were compelled to remain in 
Nebraska. 

I could go into these cases very fully and show you the sadness 
which attaches to each individual story. Each man is relieved of 
every cent he possesses and then sent somewhere, only to fool the 
employer, who expects to get suitable workers. 

There are cases of another kind, as, for instance, three men were 
bound for Chicago. An agent said he would buy their tickets and 
put them on the train. He took $20 apiece for the tickets, then took 
them down to the subway station, bought them 5-cent subway tickets, 
and told them these were tickets for Chicago. Another case was that 
of one Mellio, who arrived at the Battery after leaving Ellis Island 
and was met by a parasite, speaking Greek. He welcomed his coun¬ 
tryman, expressed solicitude for his well-being, learned that Mellio 
was bound for the Isthmus of Panama with $18 in his possession. 
He aided him in finding a steamship ticket office to purchase his 
ticket, and took $18 in exchange for a time-table and a blue litho¬ 
graphed envelope. Such cases happen all the time in New York 
City. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What do you mean by that statement, that these 
things happen all the time in New York City? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I mean that these “runners” and agents, many 
of them, are now defrauding, regularly and systematically, honest 
immigrants who are coming here and looking for work. 1 mean to 
say that it is absolutely a system, and it is a wheel within a wheel. 
To appreciate the situation, one needs only to see and hear the story 

49090—10-28 


434 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


of the defrauded immigrant or laborer—Italian, Greek, Yiddish, 
Hungarian, German, Turkish, or Roumanian. I’ve had petitions for 
relief in all these tongues. Every case that came to our notice in the 
peonage work served but to emphasize the intimate relation of 
that crime to the labor and allied agencies. By allied agencies I refer 
to certain classes of hotel keepers, steamship ticket offices, boarding 
houses, runners, guides, and parasites of various kinds which prey 
upon the immigrant the very moment he lands at the Battery and 
soon render him the penniless victim of a cooperating labor agent. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Has not the district attorney in Neyr York City 
information in regard to these matters ? It strikes me these are 
things on which he should take action. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. These cases have come before the commis¬ 
sioner. You see, it is not a question of stealing their money only. 
When we learned of a proper case for the district attorney, we took 
it to him. 

Mr. Goldfogle. If those people obtain money under false pre¬ 
tenses or false advice, that would come under the criminal law. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. But the point is that there is no investigator 
in the district attorney's ofiice who is engaged regularly upon such 
work. They do not have a man down at the pier to find out these 
frauds. 

Mr. Hayes. It might be a fraud, but it would not be obtaining 
money under false pretenses; there would be no false token or symbol 
used. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Frequently an action wall lie. 

Mr. Hayes. Ordinarily it would not lie. 

Mr. Sabath. Charges would lie before the court. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; for larceny; but these cases are not often 
discovered until too late, and the witnesses have been shipped some¬ 
where. When I w r as a government attorney such facts came into 
the Department of Justice, and hence w T ere part of my official duties. 
After investigating the facts we referred the case to the district 
attorney's ofiice if there was a case for that office, and to the license 
commissioner if the case came within his jurisdiction. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You said there are now T about 800 men engaged 
in New York City in these practices? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Not just that. I will modify what I said. I 
do not say 800 agents are engaged in fraudulent practices, but I do 
say that 800 agents in New York City are regularly licensed, and that 
they are in business solely for their fee, and for nothing else. 

Mr. O'Connell. Does not that apply to practically all business ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. It does apply practically to all business; but 
wdien it is proved that some of these agents haVe profited largely by 
deceiving honest workmen, and that these agents, after their licenses 
are revoked, continue to carry on their employment business in an 
unscrupulous w^ay through another, then it proves that many of those 
in business solely for their fee are extremely dishonest and should 
therefore be placed under federal supervision in so far as they send 
laborers from one State to another. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Inasmuch as I am from New- York City, I want 
to say that I would be much pleased if you would submit to me at any 
time the name of anyone against wdiom you have proof, or who is 
gravely suspected, of having indulged in the fraudulent practices to 
which you have referred. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


435 


Mrs. Quackenbos. I will be glad to do so. I shall send to you the 
names of those who are suspected. But as to full proof I can not 
promise to give you that, for I am not now employed by the Depart¬ 
ment of Justice, engaged in investigating these cases, nor do I belieye 
that there is, at this time in New York, a Department of Justice 
attorney investigating. II you will put a special agent to investigate 
these cases, I will be very glad to aid you and give you all the informa¬ 
tion I have. In fact, if you will take this report and make it a part 
of your record, you will find just the situation of which I am speaking. 

Mr. Sabatii. Is it not a fact that when you had secured the con¬ 
viction of some of these men and pointed out these frauds the State 
of New York did try to remedy the evil? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; I believe so. 

Mr. Sabath. And the New York state legislature has passed a new 
employment agency law which is a little stricter than the old one ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. You mean at this session of the legislature? 

Mr. Sabath. No; the old one. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I think it was two years ago, was it not ? 

Mr. Sabath. Yes. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, that is true; but I can not say that that 
was passed because of our work in the Department of Justice. 

Mr. Sabath. Not entirely. • 

Mrs. Quackenbos. It was passed upon the frauds that were ex¬ 
posed. 

Mr. Burnett. Since these exposures, and the cancellation of a lot 
of these licenses; have conditions improved any? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; I will give you instances. 

Mr. O’Connell. Before you go to that; you mentioned 800 of 
these people with licenses ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Licenses to conduct employment agencies, in 
which they charge a fee. 

Mr. O’Connell. How many of those 800 do you know, are engaged 
in defrauding immigrants ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I can not give you statistics, because I have 
not made any statistics on that point; but if you would like me to 
send- to the committee a list of all the licenses which have been revoked 
in the last year or so I will be very glad to ask the commissioner of 
licenses to give that information to us. It is a matter of record, I 
believe. 

Mr. Burnett. How many are there? Have you got it approxi¬ 
mately ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I have not any idea, but you can easily get it 
by writing to the commissioner of licenses in the city of New York. 
Here are these cases prosecuted by the department, in which licenses 
were revoked. 

Mr. Goldfogle. How many licenses have been revoked in the last 
two years ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I can not give an exact figure. I can add up 
those I know about, after going over all the department reports. 

Mr. IIayes. In which you have been interested ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Not those we went out to find, but those in 
which the question of peonage came up. Peonage is not the usual 
condition in the South; it is the unusual, a localized condition, and 
there may have been many immigrant frauds not connected with 
peonage. 


436 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Goldfogle. You intimated very strongly that there were 
about 800 of these agents in the city of New York who had been 
guilty of fraudulent, or to put it more mildly, of questionable, prac¬ 
tices. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Many are “questionable.” I will say that. 

Mr. Goldfogle. How many agents are there, to your belief, in the 
city of New York dealing in steamship tickets and acting as agents for 
steamship companies or procuring passage for foreigners ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. That I am not prepared to answer, because I 
have not made a special investigation of steamship agents. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You see, I want to get at this. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes- 

Mr. Goldfogle. If there were as many as 800 in New York who 
were guilty of questionable practices, I would like to know how many 
remain that are strictly honest. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir. Well, the only way that we can get 
at that question is to have an investigation made, and that has never 
been done that I am aware of. 

Mr. Hayes. Excuse me; I think that Mrs. Quackenbos stated that 
practically all of these agencies were working in connection with 
agencies abroad. 

Mr. Sabath. No. • 

Mrs. Quackenbos. No, sir- 

Mr. Goldfogle. If that is so, we ought to know that now, because 
if there is any such wholesale conspiracy existing in my city, I for 
one want to know it, and I would like to inform the public authori¬ 
ties so that prosecutions might be set afoot; I do not care whether 
they are municipal or state authorities, they o*ght to be informed. 

Mr. Sabath. One question has been asked, and some of the mem¬ 
bers of the committee would like to know about this. Did you make 
a statement or did you desire the committee to understand that these 
800 agents, or the majority of them, work in connection with agencies 
abroad ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I absolutely do not. I think you misunder¬ 
stood me. 

Mr. Hayes. What I thought you said was a large proportion of 
those. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Let me make a statement, because if I am on 
trial here, I want to acquit myself. 

Mr. O’Connell. You are not on trial. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; on this point I am on trial, for I have not 
made it plain. Now let me make my statement clear, because I 
know what the truth is and I want to make it clear. There are 800 
agents in New York who have licenses from the commissioner of 
licenses of New York. They conduct employment agencies for the 
hire of aliens, and they send aliens out of the city under contracts of 
work. They take a fee for that, generally from the alien and from 
the employer also. Now, many of these agents, I say, and I believe 
it—I am not going to tell you who or what, because I have not 
proved it in many cases—but I have proved it in these cases [exhibit¬ 
ing certain papers]—are closely connected with steamship agents 
who have offices abroad. I have proved it in the Aquila case, of 
which I spoke yesterday, and I think if you will take up such an 
investigation as a matter of urgent necessity, before your immigra- 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


437 


tion bills come up next fall, you will find a very large number of 
them have their favorite steamship agents abroad with whom they 
work. The custom is to have cards, Tike in this Alieva case, which 
are given to the immigrant, and he is told abroad to go and see the 
labor agent in America. Perhaps he is a banker, as in the Alieva 
case, and if he is not an employment agent as well, he has some 
associate or friend who is an employment agent. 

Mr. Burnett. And a steamship agent. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Perhaps, but the concern in Europe is the 
steamship agent generally which works with the labor agent here. 
It is a wheel within a wheel. As my assistant has said in his report. 
Purposely I did not bring my own report here, but that of another 
person, so that I might present something to you as the evidence of 
somebody else. This report was made by Louis S. Posner, who is a 
lawyer in New York City, and is now an associate of Mr. John R. 
Dos Passos at 20 Broad street. 

Mr. Hayes. I think I understood you correctly, and I understand 
it now, that many of these agents are engaged as you say. You do 
not know how many, but you believe a great many? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; but I do not want Mr. Goldfogle to have 
the impression that there is a wholesale defrauding of the immi¬ 
grants which could be seen upon the surface of things. 

Mr. Hayes. Yes; but you did say a large proportion of them. 

Mr. O’Connell. She says that she does not want to say that. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. “Many” is quite different from “all,” or “a 
large proportion.” 

Mr. Elvins. What percentage would you say ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I will not give statistics unless I am sure. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I would like to get the names and addresses of 
some of the men who are charged with these practices. 

Mr. Hayes. You say “many;” of course, that means to me, when 
you say there is a total of 800 of these agents, that a large percentage 
of those men in New York have connections and are working as you 
have stated. Do you want us to understand that ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I want you to understand that I believe that 
it is likely, but I will not say that it is so when I have not proved 
what you call “a large percentage” of cases. 

Mr. Hayes. That is what I understood. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What would you say is a large percentage? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I will not name a percentage. I say I believe 
a large percentage. I do not say it is a fact. I say a thing is a fact 
that I have proved, and I have not proved a large percentage. I 
had to do only with those cases which came under my notice as 
special assistant to the Attorney-General. I can say this, that if you 
will read the report of the New York State Immigration Commission 
you will find, I believe, something upon this point. At the close of 
the report the commission asked Governor Hughes to appoint a state 
bureau for the protection of the immigrants against just such condi¬ 
tions as I am now stating to you. I will send you the report for this 
record. 

Mr. Sabath. If there are 50 of these 800 men who are guilty of 
these fraudulent transactions, you would consider that a large 
proportion ? 


438 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mrs. Quackenbos. I consider that “many,” yes; a large propor¬ 
tion to be permitted to swindle their countrymen. 

Mr. Sabath. You consider that a large percentage of dishonest 
men ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes. I do not say that labor agents of foreign 
tongue are all thieves and robbers; but I say that if 50 out of 800 are 
guilty, if that many are thieves and robbers, it is a large percentage 
for Congress to ignore. 

Mr. Hayes. Fifty is “a good many?” 

Mr. Sabath. Of course, that is a good many. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes. 

Permit me to say to you gentlemen that this grave question can 
not be boiled down to mere statistics. It is not a question of how 
much of this you will tolerate before you pass laws which will wipe out 
the evil. It is a question as to whether you will tolerate it at all. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Is it possible for you to give us now the names or 
addresses of any of such possible 50 ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I can give you facts which are on file with the 
Department of Justice, showing those whose licenses have been 
revoked through proof; but as to charging others whom I have not 
investigated I could not do it. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I have not reference so much to those whose 
licenses have been revoked. They are out of business. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; but wait a moment. Some are doing 
business now through other agents. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Who are the other agents? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Those names I am not willing to give before 
this committee, for this reason, that I should properly take the 
cases first to the commissioner of licenses in New York. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That is right. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. For the revocation of their licenses. I have 
not come down here under any duty, but I think it not right for 
me, a citizen of New York, to give certain facts before this com¬ 
mittee which I have not presented to the proper officials in my own 
city and State. 

Mr. Goldfogle. But if this thing has been going on for a con¬ 
siderable length of time, some of the authorities must have been 
advised and ought to have taken action long ago. 

Mr. Sabath. They have been advised in these cases. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I am not speaking of those, but of the others. 

Mr. Sabath. You have not been connected with the Department 
of Justice for the last year ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Not for the last year. 

Mr. Sabath. And therefore this is voluntary on your part ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes. 

Mr. Hayes. I want to hear Mrs. Quackenbos. Let her go on. 

Mr. Sabath. I just wanted to help her out. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Here is a case of the present day in which there 
has been as yet no prosecution. Nor am I connected with this case. 
Before mentioning the case, let me preface my remarks by saying 
that as I have procured the revocation of various licenses the im¬ 
pression is abroad in New York City that I am still working for the 
Government. I have returned from Europe; they know it; and im¬ 
migrants now, when they get in trouble, try to find my office, which is 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


439 


the People’s Law Firm, in New York City. I received in Washington 
last month this telegram [exhibiting], dated February 9, 1910, from 
the editor of the Greek paper Atlantis, which reads as follows: 

February 9, 1910. 

Mrs. Mary G. Quackenbos, 

1400 Massachusetts avenue , Washington , D. C.: 

From Ferguson, S. C., we receive pitiful letters from about 50 Greeks held in 
bondage. They were sent by the American European Labor Bureau and their 
associate, C. Voicly, of 48 Roosevelt street, N. Y. 

(Turning to Mr. Goldfogle.) Here is one of the names that you 
wanted. 

We are sending you details to-night. Several begging you to investigate. Labor 
agents are again at work. Please write when you return. 

Solon J. Ylasto, Editor Atlantis. 

I took the case to the Department of Justice, gave them a copy of 
the telegram, and sent them further facts which were addressed to 
me from New York by registered mail. The Attorney-General took 
up the case: I received a letter to that effect from the department. 

Mr. Burnett. What was this place where these Greeks were said 
to be held in bondage? 

Mrs. Quackexbos. Ferguson, S. C. I have received the official 
report of the Department of Justice, dated March 4, 1910. It is 
given to me as a courtesy, and the department has no objection to 
your making this report a part of your record. Briefly speaking, 
they found no peonage in Ferguson; but the special agent, William It. 
Benham, who wrote the report, after investigation, says: 

These Greeks are particularly incensed against one S. Miletich and one C. Youly 
[Voicly]. They stated that said persons are jointly interested in the American- 
European Labor Exchange, 48 Roosevelt street, New York. They further stated 
that above-named persons procured their entire original party of 36 for said Santee 
River Lumber Company, and charged each man a fee ranging from $2.50 to $3 for 
securing said employment, and that said persons represented to them at the time they 
were so employed that their work was to be in the mill of said company, but on arrival 
at Ferguson they were put to work in the cypress swamp nearby. 

Then omitting, in order not to take too much time, they com¬ 
plained also that the wages were not as agreed. The report goes on to 
say: 

The work is exceedingly hard and made highly disagreeable by reason of the water 
which stands in said swamp a part of the time, through which the men have to wade 
while about their work. 

It is contended that the place is very unhealthy, and that many of the workmen are 
stricken with fever, from which death frequently follows. Altogether, this swamp is 
certainly not a desirable place in which to labor, and it can readily be understood 
why foreigners sent there by labor agents complain when they are assigned to work 
therein, especially when said labor agents represented to them that the work was to be 
of an indoor character. 

And further on he says that foreigners are now being exploited 
and deceived by this agency. The report reads: 

It is evidently a fact that foreigners have been and now are being deceived and ex¬ 
ploited by said American-European Labor Exchange, and that said Santee River 
Lumber Company is not fair in its treatment to the foreign element of its employees. 

They report no charge of peonage, for the agent found that there 
was no peonage. Since there have been peonage prosecutions, 
frequently an immigrant who is shipped to do work totally different 
from that promised and a kind of work for which he is not suited 


440 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


thinks he is in a peonage condition. He does not know what peonage 
is. I want to do justice to the South by saying that in many 
cases where immigrants are deceived peonage does not result at all; 
but all the trouble and difficulty arises from the misrepresentations of 
the agent. Of course a man complains when he pays a fee for a good 
job and is then sent to a kind of work for which he is not suited after 
having been told by the agent it was “just the thing for him.” This 
is why I urge distribution by the National Government to leave no 
chance for misrepresentation. 

Mr. Sabath. And that is being practiced more or less by these 
agents ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes. 

Mr. Sabath. And they promise them that they will have certain 
wages and certain work ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes. 

Mr. Sabath. And when these men arrive at the place to which 
they have been shipped, they find that they do not receive the amount 
of wages or have the kind of work that they have been informed that 
they were going to receive ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. That is exactly true. 

Mr. Sabath. And therefore they are dissatisfied with the place 
and the locality, and it creates prejudice against the laborers in the 
district to which they are sent ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Exactly. 

Mr. Sabath. Because people there are under the impression that 
these foreigners do not desire to work ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. That is it. 

Mr. Sabath. And they do not understand the conditions, or how 
they were sent there ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Exactly. 

Mr. Sabath. And if the people in the places to which they are sent 
would understand that these men had been lied to and that the work 
had been misrepresented also, and their wages misrepresented, they 
would not have so much bad feeling against these foreigners; is not 
that true ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. That is exactly true. You have stated the con¬ 
dition truly. 

Mr. Hayes. Mr. Sabath is testifying. 

Mr. Sabath. I have devoted about four months of my time, the 
very first session I was in Congress here, to these complaints,.and I 
know a good deal of fraud does exist and did exist, and it creates prej¬ 
udice against the foreigner because these men will not remain to work 
in the places to which they are sent, when in fact they did not desire 
to go there in the first place and they were sent there by false repre¬ 
sentations. 

Mr. Hayes. I want to hear Mrs. Quackenbos. Let her go on. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I think Mr. Sabath explains the need much 
better than I do. 

Mr. Sabath. Oh, no; I do not; of course, we are here on my bill, 
and I just want to make it plain. Mrs. Quackenbos is here, and will 
appear again if the committee desires to hear her. 

Mr. Burnett. What are these so-called charitable associations in 
New York City doing to look after these people and distribute them? 





HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


441 


Mrs. Quackenbos. In that connection I will say that I have 
recently written to each one of these institutions asking information. 
I have not received all the answers as yet. I will be glad to put 
them before the committee when they come. 

Mr. Burnett. Are they aware of this exploitation of the foreigners, 
and are they allowing it without any effort to prevent it on their 
part ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I think that institutions doing honest chari¬ 
table work in connection with foreigners would like to see the labor 
agents of whom we are now speaking put under federal supervision. 

Mr. Goldfogle. If possible, I would like to have you answer the 
question put by Mr. Burnett. 

Mr. Burnett. I asked whether these institutions were allowing 
this wholesale exploitation by labor agencies of the people of their 
own county without interference on their part in any way ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I would prefer to answer that after I had 
investigated them; but if I must answer now without an investiga¬ 
tion, I would say no; I would say they are engaged in their own 
philanthropic work, and therefore do not interest themselves in this. 

Mr. Burnett. Is it any part of their work to distribute these 
immigrants and send them out ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; I think nearly all these foreign philan¬ 
thropic institutions do in a certain measure distribute; but many of 
them house immigrants and look after their welfare while they are 
in the city, after they land. 

Mr. O’Connell. Do you believe that if this deceit and misrepre¬ 
sentation was eliminated, it would tend to lift this prejudice which 
seems to exist in the South against these men who are discontented 
with their lot after they arrive there 1 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Absolutely; and I will explain it to you. If 
the right man is sent to the right place, he will not run away. There 
will be no peonage. You send the wrong man to that place, and he 
runs away; and then they go out and catch him and bring him back. 

Mr. O’Connell. You think one real cause of the trouble is this 
misrepresentation ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes, sir; I think all the trouble starts with 
that. The men who are engaged in this business not only cheat their 
countrymen, but they fool the American employers as well. Both the 
workmen who are deceived and the American employer are honest. 
If the man was suited to the work and the employer to the man, 
there would be no trouble. The federal bureau makes careful selec¬ 
tion in every case and there is never any trouble. 

Mr. O’Connell. And that tends to create bad feeling ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; that tends to create bad feeling. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. Is not this a fact: That an employer in 
the South who desires to get a particular kind of laborer for a particu¬ 
lar kind of work in the South sends to an employment agency, say in 
the city of New York, an exact statement of what he wants ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. And the employment agency sends 
him a man who is not at all fitted for that work ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. That is exactly it. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. And deceives the man whom it sends, 
whether he is an alien or native born ? 





442 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; the employer in the distant State is 
deceived, as well as the alien or native workman here. The all- 
important question to the agent is his fee. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. And that the employment agent de¬ 
ceives both the man he sends and the employer to whom he sends him ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. He does. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. And that is the reason for a great deal 
of this trouble ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; if employers would get their labor through 
the Federal Government, a responsible agency, they would have no 
fee whatsoever to pay, and they would get the right men—men suited 
to the work and to whom the contract and all its conditions have been 
carefully and fully explained in advance. They would also get the 
particular nationality they made request for. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. And a man who was not deceived. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes. 

Mr. Burnett. Do you know how many of the 350,000 immigrants 
that have arrived in this country this distribution bureau has sent 
out in the last twelve months ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. You mean the federal bureau ? 

Mr. Burnett. The distribution bureau of which Mr. Powderly is 
the chief ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I do not know exactly, but I have here Mr. 
Powderly’s reports. 

Mr. Burnett. It is less than 5,000, is it not ? 

Mr. Sabath. I can give you the reason why. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I will file the reports of the Division of Infor¬ 
mation; the reports of 1908 and 1909. They will show all the work 
which has been done. I think the division has been in existence but 
two years. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. Yes; two full years. 

Mr. Burnett. Should those reports be printed in the record ? 

. Mrs. Quackenbos. If it will make the record too voluminous, I 
will mark certain extracts for the record. 

The Chairman. Yes; you may do that. 

(The extracts referred to will be found appended to this hearing.) 

Mrs. Quackenbos. In line with what Mr. Bennet has said, I want 
to place on record the card of Labor Agent Schwartz, who before his 
license was revoked did a rushing and remunerative business. Let 
me read what Schwartz promised to do. 

S. S. Schwartz’s Labor Agency, 113-115 First street, New York, between avenue A 
and First avenue. Best known and largest agency in the United States. Any num¬ 
ber or nationality of skilled or unskilled laborers furnished. Newly landed foreigners 
always on hand. Contractors supplied at short notice. Licensed under $1,000 bond. 

Telegram: Schwartz’s Labor Agency, 133-115 First street. 

Hungarian, Polish, Swedish, Norwegian, French, Italian, Greek, Irish, and Fin- 
landish laborers arrive every week from Europe. 

Kindly call at once at my office to engage a gang of shortly landed foreigners. (Not 
spoiled from city life.) My office fees are reasonable. Let me hear from you soon, or 
tell your friends to send their orders. Yours, truly, S. S. Schwartz, labor agent, 
New York. 

You will note that he says in parentheses “Not spoiled from city 
- life.’ 7 That is a hint that he will get you the kind of stranger that 
you can control. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


443 


On his card he had an American flag in one corner and his picture 
in the other. Frequently there is a picture of a large ship in full 
sail and the brawny arm of a workman about to strike the hammer. 

But I think we have dwelt long enough upon the subject of the 
agents. 

I would like to state what the Federal Government is doing in 
distribution and to draw a contrast if possible—for there is a sharp 
contrast to be considered. Mr. Powderly, who is chief of the division, 
stated to me in conversation that it was the purpose of the division 
to know where every available acre of land is to be had in the United 
States, what that land will produce, the kind of crops, the number 
per year, the climatic conditions, the proximity to lines of transpor¬ 
tation, rad or water, the nearest markets for produce, the terms on 
which the land can be had, the conditions as to churches, schools, 
banking facilities in the neighborhood, and everything which a man 
going to a new place to make a home would want to know. This 
was the foundation which he laid for accurate knowledge of condi¬ 
tions into which he would later distribute workers and settlers. I 
think it is an excellent idea. Some thought it a stupendous work 
and tried to discourage him, but Mr. Powderly seems to be an admi¬ 
rable leader in this distribution system. 

Both Mr. Powderly and Mr. Green, his assistant in New York, who 
is extremely well qualified for the work, believed that the collection 
of such a mass of information was not a hard thing to do, but easy 
to do when one wanted to do it, and so they have laid a splendid 
foundation for distribution. I will say this much, gentlemen: I have 
never been connected with the bureau and I want to see it prosper 
chiefly because their work if broadened will eliminate the frauds, 
and I believe it a patriotic movement, thus bringing together in¬ 
telligently the unemployed and working opportunities. They have 
made an excellent start, and, to my mind, the interests of this nation 
demand that this bureau be given a wider scope for its work, for no 
agency so well as a government agency can distribute labor equitably 
without regard to sect or creed or political party. The Division of 
Information, however, can not do this great work alone; they need 
cooperation with the Post-Oflice and Agricultural departments, and 
this, I believe, they are receiving to some extent. With even a 
broader cooperation of these departments the division will be in a 
position to know all there is to know about the agricultural and 
industrial conditions throughout the country and the conditions 
for settlers. They will be acquainted with the situation and the 
need for labor in even the remotest towns. It seems most important 
and valuable to centralize such a mass of information and a con¬ 
venience to employers to have a central bureau in which to file it. 
The division is now in touch with every subpostal station in the 
United States. Through these post-offices the farmers report to the 
division as to how many men they want, whether farmers or farm 
hands, and of what nationality. But what is the use of such informa¬ 
tion if it is not given to some one who will be benefited by it? At 
this point I think it very important that you put on record these 
printed forms which the division of information sends out. Here 
are forms for farm laborers, for settlers, for domestics, for reporting 
local conditions, and so on. 

(The forms referred to are appended to this hearing.) 



444 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Sabath. When you say for “settlers,” you mean for immi¬ 
grants who come here and are ready to settle and buy land ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Ready to do so. 

Mr. Sabath. Who have money enough with them to buy land ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes. Doctor Stella, of New York, who was 
the official delegate from the Italian Government to the Congress on 
Tuberculosis in Washington, states that nine-tenths of the Italians 
who come from southern Italy come from the rural districts. He says 
that 77 per cent remain in the cities, but a large number have no 
opportunity of getting away. The situation has come to be unwhole¬ 
some in New York. People should be distributed, because of tene¬ 
ment congestion, tuberculosis, and because there are hundreds of 
farms that are lying idle for want of labor. The Italian Government, 
I believe, would aid in the distribution of Italians into rural districts 
if they were requested so to do, and I doubt not but that other govern¬ 
ments would also be glad to cooperate. I have received such personal 
assurances. 

Mr. Burnett. In this country? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; in this country. I do not like to speak 
of my own writings, but I have outlined just how T this can be done in a 
pamphlet which I will make a part of this record if you wish it. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. Yes; in the steerage of every ship 
coming from Italy there is posted up advice to the immigrants to go 
on farms, and a statement as to where they can receive information 
in the United States as to how to get onto the farms. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I am glad to hear this. Now, I asked Mr. 
Powderly yesterday to give me, roughly, the number of persons 
which the bureau has dealt with—both employers and employees. 
He could not give a figure without going over the records. He must 
also receive from his superiors permission to give such testimony. I 
understand the applications at the New York branch have been 
numerous, but I would urge you strongly to call Mr. Powderly and 
also the New York manager, Mr. Green, before this committee. 

Mr. Burnett. And only sent out a little over 4,000 ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I have investigated why. In the beginning 
Mr. Powderly, instead of rushing numbers, began by laying the 
foundation, as I said, for getting accurate information and inspiring 
confidence in the employers, as well as in the applicants for work. 
During the administration of the former Commissioner-General of 
Immigration distribution was commenced carefully and wisely, so 
that the information, the getting of which took the nation’s money, 
was used to benefit the nation, to develop the resources of the nation. 
It bore fruit in the shape of farm hands where farm hands were 
needed, common laborers where pick and shovel men were needed, 
and settlers in States which welcome the surplus population of the 
East. But lately the work has been unduly restricted to agricul¬ 
turists and domestics. I say “unduly” because I believe it is 
“unduly” restricted. Now, farm hands are not wanted at all sea¬ 
sons of the year, and it must be made a popular thing to introduce 
the agricultural spirit into immigrants already in cities. The States 
must cooperate with the national bureau. The laws against over¬ 
crowding must be enforced in the cities. Overcrowders must be 
practically forced out in the beginning, whether they like it or not, 
and by and by when they get into the country their condition will be 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


445 


bettered, and they will understand and gradually draw away their 
countrymen from the tenements. Arriving aliens will then want to 
go where their countrymen are, and life in rural districts in America 
will be more attractive. It is to my mind better to distribute all 
classes now and induce as many as possible to leave city life. But I 
think it is a mistake to cut out part of the work. 

Mr. Burnett. Cut out by order of Mr. Keefe ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I really do not know. I think it is by order 
of the Secretary, the head of the department, is it not, Mr. Bennet ? 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. I am not sure myself. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Perhaps Mr. Nagel leaves that work to Mr. 
Keefe, and Mr. Keefe issues the order. I have not had the imperti¬ 
nence to ask, but I should think the man at the head of the depart¬ 
ment is the only one who could cut down the work. The law says 
the division must promote “a beneficial distribution of aliens.” It 
does not specify the kind of work. 

Mr. Burnett. And this applies to domestics ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; they distribute domestics, but not many. 
The bill before us seeks to broaden the scope of the division and estab¬ 
lish twelve government agencies throughout the United States. It 
provides for the distribution of agriculturists and kindred workers, 
settlers, domestics, and common laborers. In each exchange there 
could be a woman’s department as well, which would be a good thing 
if managed by a woman of experience. She could carry out an 
intelligent plan to place women where work is, teach them how to 
seek work, where to go, where to board while awaiting work, etc. 
This would safeguard helpless women and protect them from the 
viciousness of white-slave dealers. I believe the report of the 
Congressional Commission on Immigration shows that many of the 
white-slave cases were brought about by bad agents in this country. 
I am referring to cases where women, arriving here as immigrants 
or even citizens, are sent by these agencies to the white-slave dealers. 
Is that not so, Mr. Bennet ? 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. Yes. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. So that I would strongly recommend these 
women’s branches. I do not see any immediate necessity of making 
a point of distributing domestics, but domestics could in time be 
distributed beneficially to places where their countrymen have been 
sent to work or have settled. The act of February 20 reads: “It 
shall be the duty of the division to promote a beneficial distribution 
of aliens throughout the States and Territories desiring immigration.” 
I should think that all workers who want to be distributed would have 
a right to be distributed under this law. It does not say there shall 
be a beneficial distribution of agriculturists and domestics only. 
Department regulation seems to have changed the spirit and intent 
of the law which you passed in 1907. Therefore I would urge you to 
provide in this law for the distribution of common laborers also, for 
the bulk of our immigration and those I am asking you to save from 
the clutches of the labor sharks are the common laborers. Skilled 
laborers also might be distributed by this bureau, but we do not 
mention them here, because they are supposed to be distributed 
through their unions. But I see no reason why their unions should 
not cooperate in this work, as they do so heartily with the German 
Government labor exchanges. 


446 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. There is no provision in the law against distributing 
common laborers as it now stands ? 

Mr. Sabath. The law is not enforced, and, furthermore, the Com¬ 
missioner of Immigration is unfriendly to such a distribution. 

Mr. Hayes. It may come from a belief in his mind, as I confess it 
is in m}^ mind, that nearly all immigrants have a contract of employ¬ 
ment, or an understanding for employment, before they start from 
abroad. 

Mr. Sabath. You are wrong. 

Mr. Hayes. And there is no seeking to have labor come here where 
there is no demand for it. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. If all immigrants come here under a contract 
of employment, as Mr. Hayes says, then it is the duty of the Depart¬ 
ment of Commerce and Labor and the Department of Justice to 
prosecute these cases, for the law is violated. The cutting down of 
the number or kind to be distributed after they are admitted has 
nothing to do with that question. I urge you to pass this law, because 
it provides explicitly for investigation and the punishment of all those 
who introduce labor in that way. It brings the facts in such cases 
under a review by the Federal Government. 

Mr. Burnett. About what is the cost, if you know, of this division 
of distribution? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I do not know the annual cost of the whole 
division, but Mr. Bennet can give us that. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. It is $30,000 a year. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. In New York I think it costs $30 a day. I 
investigated this agency while I was investigating the other employ¬ 
ment agencies. I found nothing against it but much in its favor, and 
you know I should not have hesitated to come here and state that the 
federal agency was defrauding aliens if it had been so doing. If I 
was not convinced that it was doing excellent work, and did not 
believe that it could be made very efficient if its scope was broadened, 
I should not have wasted eight months abroad and six months here 
trying to aid distribution through government channels. 

Mr. Sabath. I know this, that before Mr. Keefe was made Com¬ 
missioner of Immigration arrangements were made by the old immi¬ 
gration inspector for a bureau in Chicago, and all the arrangements 
had been made, and the man had been assigned to it, a gentleman by 
the name of Crawford, and within a few weeks after Mr. Keefe was 
in office the matter was eliminated. 

Mr. Burnett. Let me ask you how many were distributed the 
year before he became commissioner ? 

Mr. Sabath. The bureau has been created only a few years; they 
just started to work—that is, to get the matters in shape—and they 
were really not ready to do any effective work. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. May I answer that ? 

Mr. Burnett. They have been in existence three years the 30th of 
this coming June. 

Mr. Sabath. Three years; yes. This is the third year. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes. 

Mr. Hayes. On the 30th of June it will be three years. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. The first year it distributed 2 J)99 workers, and 
there was not a complaint against it, which is very great testimony, 
I think, in its favor, because it had to be sure that not one of those 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


447 


2,099 laborers went away under misrepresentation or mistake, and 
they had to be reasonably sure that the places were those for which 
these men were suited. This past year they distributed 5,000, 
I think, was it not ? It is in their report. 

Mr. Burnett. No ; it was something over 4,000. , 

Mr. Hayes. I think it should be stated, in defense of the adminis¬ 
tration of Mr. Keefe, that of course he had nothing to do with the 
policy of the department, and whatever is done in regard to this is 
done by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes. 

Mr. Hayes. Mr. Keefe does not control the polic} 7 of the depart¬ 
ment. 

Mr. Burnett. Four thousand one hundred and sixty-eight immi¬ 
grants were placed in employment through this bureau. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. That is a large number when you eliminate the 
distribution of common laborers. The great bulk of our immigrants 
are common laborers, and they have not distributed any of those 
during the past year; their work was cut down. If they had had 
permission, I suppose you would call it, or department sanction, to 
distribute common laborers such as the law provides for, I feel con¬ 
fident their numbers would be way up in the tens of thousands. 

Mr. Burnett. Flow many common laborers were distributed 
before Mr. Keefe took charge of the bureau ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. The majority were common laborers, I believe; 
but we will get that from the report. 

Mr. Burnett. Mr. Keefe has not been in but a year, and that 
ought not to be held against him. 

Mr. Hayes. These two reports were before he came in. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. We are not saying anything against Mr. Keefe, 
whom I know. He has always been very courteous to me. I think 
if this law were passed, providing for bureaus in all the large cities, 
he would be willing to have the entire work broadened. If not, I 
think he would be willing to come down here and state why, because 
this is an important question. 

I call your attention to this pamphlet which your committee has 
issued as a public document, containing, as it reads, 93 letters from 
governors of various States, boards of trade, railroad presidents, 
Cardinal Gibbons, and many other persons of standing in the com¬ 
munity. The testimony contained in these letters in answer to the 
question— 

In your opinion, would an intelligent distribution of immigration under the direc¬ 
tion of the federal authorities, in conjunction with those of the various States, tend 
to offset the evils of alleged excessive immigration— 

seems to me to be the most eloquent testimony as to whether there is 
need for distribution throughout the country. 

The sum total of the answers was this: 

That a comprehensive plan of distribution, under the direction of the federal 
authorities, in cooperation with those of the various States, is most desirable and 
would tend to obviate the evils of congestion in our larger cities. 

Mr. Elvins. How many answers were there to that ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. There are quite a number of them. 

Mr. Elvins. Most of them are from real-estate and railroad people ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I found quite a number of them that were not. 
I thought various governors answered affirmatively. The letters are 


448 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


tabulated. It is your own document, and you ought to know about 
it; but I found quite a number—quite a large number—who heartily 
indorsed federal distribution in cooperation with the various States. 

Germany has solved this question of the unemployed by establish¬ 
ing government exchanges in all its large cities. Berlin has two 
such exchanges with buildings like this [indicating photograph]. A 
sort of workingmen’s clubhouse, in which the employer can meet the 
worker and where there are many workers to select from, and all the 
information as to the nature and conditions of work is centralized. 

Mr. Burnett. That is only for their own people, is it not ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Of course they mainly work for their own peo¬ 
ple, but many of the so-called wandering workmen become stranded 
in Germany. 

Mr. Burnett. Is it not true that they will not let them stay there 
in their own country, but send them out ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. They are on their way out, as they come. I 
suppose. 

Mr. Burnett. Yes. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. But these immigrants of ours—they are “our 
own people ” here—because they are of different nationalities, they are 
no less “our own people” after they are admitted into this country. 
Therefore I think the question is the same. Perhaps our work is 
harder to do and broader, for we have a greater responsibility in 
dealing with so many nationalities, but that is all the greater reason 
why we should do it intelligently, efficiently, and equitably. 

The Berlin exchange has a great assembly hall where workers can 
be gathered together in sufficient numbers to permit of intelligent dis¬ 
crimination. The Division of Information, the distribution bureau 
of our great United States Government, has a little basement at No. 
17 Pearl street, New York City, with three dark, miserable rooms, not 
half as good as many of the foreign agencies, and not at all inviting 
to a man looking for work nor to an employer seeking laborers. And 
in addition to that handicap the manager’s efforts are restricted as to 
whom they shall send out. A man—a common laborer, just the one 
who needs government direction most—comes looking for a job and is 
told: “We can not give you any information; we can not distribute 
laborers unless they are agriculturists.” I know this because I have 
investigated it, and the result is that these laborers are turned away 
from a place which charges no fee and which could give them accurate 
information, and they have to go to those agencies which have the 
enormous signs and which promise a laborer anything and everything 
and treat him as so much merchandise. They pay a fee and they get 
defrauded, and some American employer is defrauded along with the 
immigrant in the same way. 

Mr. Burnett. Are most of those agencies in New York also in the 
immigrant bank business ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Yes; a large number of them. And some have 
a post box in front of the agency, and the immigrant, especially the 
Italian, sees the post box and supposes that the bank also is a govern¬ 
ment institution. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Do you mean here ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. In New York. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You say in New York. Do you mean in other 
places also ? 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 449 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I do not know; I presume it is the same in other 
places. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I do not like to have the distinction made that 
these things are only in New York. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Well, of course, Mr. Goldfogle, neither do I. 1 
am also a New Yorker, you know; but if we know such truths aboul 
our city we must keep pegging away until we’ve improved conditions 

Mr. Garner, who is a Representative from the anthracite fields ot 
Pennsylvania, has introduced a bill in the House for better distribu¬ 
tion. He wants an information labor office in each and every post- 
office in the United States. He recognizes the need for better distri¬ 
bution and bringing employers in touch with those desiring employ¬ 
ment. 

The Secretary of Agriculture, after reading my plan, writes the fol¬ 
lowing letter, which I will read and place on record: 

I highly approve of what you are endeavoring to do. 

One reason for the high price of everything the American consumer eats is the lack 
of sufficient help to enable the farmers of the United States to produce more. It would 
be good for these people to get them distributed through the country among the pro¬ 
ducers on the farm, and it would be good for the country to have them there. The 
authority for doing work along this line rests with the Department of Commerce and 
Labor;. 

Mr. Burnett. Is not the American farmer producing more than 
he ever has produced ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. But there are thousands of acres idle, and, 
according to Mr. James J. Hill, we need many more producers. The 
would-be producers are in New York living in the tenement houses. 
There are over 114,000 tenement houses in New York, and much of 
the foreign population herding there is composed of natural tillers of 
the soil. Without opportunity and aid they must remain in the 
tenement—to crowd and breed disease. 

The report of the New York committee on tuberculosis says: 

The tuberculosis situation in New York is critical. The great danger to the com 
munity is from the uninstructed careless consumptive in his tenement home. 

There are in New York City to-day— 

44,000 known consumptives. 

28,000 uncared for now. 

24,000 new cases each year. 

20,000 have died from consumption in two years. 

Mr. Burnett. Is that among aliens only ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. No; among all people, but principally among 
the tenement-house population, which is an alien population. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You say the tenement-house population is mostly 
alien population; that is not so. They are mixed. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I thought the tenement population was largely 
made up of aliens. 

Mr. Goldfogle. No; they are mixed. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Well, you must know, Mr. Goldfogle, if you 
represent any of the tenement districts. 

The point is that we Americans are exploiting the aliens, for while 
our federal laws are excellent for keeping them out of the country 
we show a noticeable lack of interest in them after they are admitted 
and we let them drift. They want to work and we ought to have 
government labor exchanges to help them get the work that they 
can do. I want to say in behalf of our immigrants, that I believe 

49090—10-29 



450 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


they are absolutely well-meaning, and if the American Government 
would show the least interest in them and expend the necessary 
money and activity in getting them into {he localities where they can 
work and where they can by their work give satisfaction to their 
employers, upon which point I can give you much testimony in their 
favor, you will find no trouble with them. Down in the Jewish 
section of New York arriving aliens are taught not only to work but 
to be good citizens, and they are not taught by Americans either, 
but by Jews. They are instructed in our laws. I know of no other 
section where immigrants are taught by their own people to become 
good citizens of our nation. 

Mr. Burnett. Are there many of them without employment 
there now ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I can not give you the statistics on that, but I 
think that the applications at the charities would show that there 
were many. 

Mr. Goldfogle. I would like to make this observation: You said 
there was no other section of New York City where immigrants are 
taught to become good citizens, except in the Jewish section. Permit 
me to correct you in that; there are many institutions in the city of 
New York where a great deal of the work is directed toward the 
Americanization of the immigrants. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. Are they instructed in the laws of the United 
States ? 

Mr. O’Connell. That is school work. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. You mean in the high schools? 

Mr. Goldfogle. I mean in the schools generally. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I mean that these Jewish immigrants are taught 
by men of their own nationality, by the best people of their own 
nationality, who donate money for this work and try to make them 
good citizens—much better citizens than we try to make of them. 

Mr. Bennet, of New York. Yes. 

Mr. Goldfogle. My personal observation, and it has been large, 
indeed, is that we have a large number of institutions, including our 
educational institutions, which make it a point to educate the im¬ 
migrants and cause their assimilation as rapidly as possible, and 
make efforts in a variety of ways to Americanize them, and do that 
work well. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. And yet, Mr. Goldfogle, the tenement condi¬ 
tions still remain. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Tenement conditions will always, I am afraid, 
remain in large cities. 

Mrs. Quackenbos. It seems to me that distribution will solve the 
tenement conditions. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Yes; no doubt. 

Mr. O’Connell. Do not a large number of these people come 
from agricultural communities in the Old World, and come here be¬ 
cause they are tired of agricultural conditions and do not want to 
continue in them any longer, but would prefer to go into mechanical 
and manufacturing centers where different talent is to be developed 
in them ? Is there not on the part of the immigrant himself a desire 
to enter into a different form of life than that in which he has lived ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I think the answer to that question is this: 
The immigrant hears the story of America abroad; it takes his fancy; 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


451 


from what he is told, he thinks it must be heaven. One poor man in 
Mississippi told me the steamship agent said that in America the boss 
would hang a large piece oij meat on his door every morning. He 
believes what he is told. One place is just as good as another to him. 
One kind of work as good as another, if his beloved countryman is in 
that place or is doing that work. If the steamship agent made agri¬ 
culture popular with them, they would engage in agriculture; but 
when they are told that they can pick up money in the city streets, so 
to speak, and that they can make this and that fabulous wage per 
day, and when their countrymen are crowded into 114,000 tenement 
houses, as they are in New York City, they come over, too, to share 
those identical conditions. They are the only conditions they know 
about. 

The immigrant isn’t designing at all. He doesn’t assert himself 
and say what he is going to do. He just takes what he gets, and if he 
is disappointed he tries to save up enough to get away as soon as pos¬ 
sible. That is largely why he takes his money home. Most of them, 
I believe, would like to have a home if they could get one, but when 
they are not helped they get discouraged; quite naturally, too. If 
we make it pleasant for the alien when he comes, and send him to a 
suitable place away from New York, I believe he’d be contented and 
stay. It is worth a trial, anyway. 

Mr. O’Connell. If manufacturing conditions gave him more hope 
for that, why should there be a tendency to keep him in the agricul¬ 
tural class ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. To my mind there should not be any such 
tendency—the Division of Information should not be restricted. 

Mr. Sabath. This bill would modify conditions, and if the immi¬ 
grants were needed in the factories, they would be sent there, and if 
they were needed in agriculture, they would be sent to agricultural 
districts. 

Mr. Elvins. And in that way, by sending them out to agricultural 
communities you could produce more? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. That is ,the opinion of some people, and it is 
certainly mine, that there is plenty of land and few producers. 

Mr. Elvins. Do you not think we could improve conditions by 
having fewer people to consume ? 

Mrs. Quackenbos. I think we must solve the problems that con¬ 
front us now. The question is, What shall we do with the surplus 
population already admitted? The Government should, as the law 
provides, distribute this surplus, beneficially, among the States and 
Territories desiring immigration; the question of our future immi¬ 
gration must then be settled in another way. 

Mr. Sabath. I wish to put in the record these figures. Under 
this distribution bureau 5,008 have been given employment and 
26,477 have received information from the bureau. I submit here¬ 
with an outline of a plan for better distribution, written by Mrs. 
Mary Grace Quackenbos and published in the March (1910) number 
of The Editorial Review; also extract from same Review. 

(At 11.55 o’clock a. m. the committee adjourned.) 



452 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


[Extract from The Editorial Review for the month of March, 1910, page 231, submitted by Mr. Sabath. J 

“Distribution, the solution of the immigrant and tuberculosis problems,” by Mary 
Grace Quackenbos, offers a method of ameliorating the conditions resulting from the 
congestion of our immigrant population. The article is written not only from a broad 
knowledge and study of statistics, but from wide practical experience, and conse¬ 
quently carries conviction. To overcome some of the evils and obstacles and bring 
about an equitable and efficient system of distribution Mrs. Quackenbos has proposed 
a distributing plan based upon experience in European countries and which seems 
to be a feasible one for this country. It involves the cooperation of the States and 
Territories with the United States Government, and likewise that of foreign govern¬ 
ments. Mrs. Quackenbos has practiced law for the last six years, directing her ener¬ 
gies toward aiding distressed aliens and others unable to pay the ordinary fees for 
competent legal services. As one of the attorneys for the Legal Aid Society, she has 
worked in New York’s lower East Side courts. Five years ago Mrs. Quackenbos 
founded The People’s Law Firm, a philanthropic institution of which she is the head. 
While carrying on this work, aided by a staff of lawyers, in which she acquired an 
intimate acquaintance with the tenement-house conditions on the East Side of New 
York, she was appointed special assistant to the Attorney-General for the United 
States at Washington, and was engaged for months in peonage cases. She was thus 
brought into personal touch with the labor question of great centers of population like 
New York, and also of the South, and realized how the proper distribution of immi¬ 
grants would ameliorate conditions in the crowded cities of the North and meet the 
labor needs of the South. Resigning her position as Special Assistant Attorney- 
General, she went to Europe at her own expense to study the immigrant question at 
first hand. Visiting the most remote provinces of southern and middle Europe, 
studying the home environment of the peasants from whom the immigrant class is 
so largely drawn, Mrs. Quackenbos gives authoritative information and the article 
will be read with especial interest at the present time when the problems treated are 
claiming particular attention and earnest study at the hands of legislators, scientists, 
and social reformers. 


Article from the Editorial Review for the month of March, 1910, pages 243-251. Submitted by Mr. 

Sabath, a member of the committee.] 

Distribution, the Solution of the Immigrant and Tuberculosis Problems— 
By Mary Grace Quackenbos. 

Two problems of immediate importance to the National Government and to the States 
present certain questions of public policy which, sooner or later, must be met by 
practical and uniform legislation. They are the immigrant and tuberculosis prob¬ 
lems, and are so closely related that the solutioh of the one means the ultimate eradi¬ 
cation of the other. 

The appalling number of deaths from tuberculosis .is directly traceable to the 
enormous herdings of population. This is strikingly indicated in the report of the 
New York committee on tuberculosis. 

“The tuberculosis situation in New York is critical. The great danger to the 
community is from the uninstructed careless consumptive in his tenement home.” 

Statistics for New York City to-day show 44,000 known consumptives, 28,000 
uncared for now, 24,000 new cases each year, 20,000 deaths from consumption in two 
years. 

Immigration, adding continually to the congestion, has reached abnormal propor¬ 
tions, and it is now a matter of vital and urgent necessity to reduce this congestion 
and divert from tenements to rural districts the inpouring throngs. 

Last year 256,425 admitted aliens give their destination as New York; this was 
32 per cent of the entire number admitted; over 64 per cent went to five Northern 
States, leaving but 36 per cent to scatter themselves over all the remaining portions 
of our vast country. Of these, 112,816 were either farmers, farm laborers, or had no 
occupation, and could therefore have been utilized in agricultural work. Yet they 
remained in cities while millions of acres of farm lands throughout the country lay 
uncultivated and abandoned. 

Distribution is the efficient remedy for both the tuberculosis and immigrant evils. 
This was recognized by Congress when, on February 20, 1907, it established a national 
bureau—the Division of Information. The act reads: 

“It shall be the duty of said division to promote a beneficial distribution of aliens 
admitted into the United States among the several States and Territories desiring 
immigration.” 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


453 


The most efficient distribution plan is manifestly one in which the idea of cooper¬ 
ation between the United States Government and the States is emphasized by per¬ 
mitting representatives of the States to have a voice in the enterprise; and still 
further emphasized as to cooperation between the States and the immigrant masses, 
by permitting representatives of the latter also to have a voice in the enterprise. 

The industrial and agricultural boards of the various States seeking to attract 
settlers and workers to develop their resources are meeting with hindrances which 
may be summarized as follows: 

1. It is difficult to induce aliens to move from cities where they are held by the 
natural attraction between countrymen. 

2. Aliens lack confidence in strangers who urge them to go to a strange place under 
conditions vouched for by no one whom they know. 

3. Aliens lack the means to pay for transportation. 

4. There are no large central bureaus where workers may be collected in sufficient 
numbers to permit intelligent discrimination and selection for the various classes of 
work. 

To overcome these difficulties a plan is here submitted which is believed to be 
workable and feasible, and the law above quoted may stand as its basis. 

I. MOVING ALIENS TO PREVENT OVERCROWDING IN CITIES. 

There are tenement-house laws in most of our States especially designed to guard 
against overcrowding. The New York State law reads: 

“No room in any tenement house shall be so overcrowded that there shall be afforded 
less than 400 cubic feet of air to each adult, and 200 cubic feet of air to each child 
under 12 years of age.” 

Enforcement of such a law is more urgent than is new legislation. In this manner 
there will be made available for distribution many of the multitude now living in 
the 102,000 tenements of New York City. In any event, and what is of equal impor¬ 
tance, it will prevent arriving masses from settling in already overfilled sections, 0 
thus safeguarding them from disease, and increasing the number of distributed workers. 
When groups of newcomers settle in distant States their countrymen will be gradually 
drawn away from the tenements. 

A strengthening of the present laws and their stricter enforcement might well be 
considered in recognition of their immediate relation to tuberculosis; appropriations 
for state health inspectors would ultimately be cheaper than the expense of melio¬ 
rating the evils which their vigilence would prevent. 

II. REASSURING ALIENS. 

Aliens should be helped to find work for which they are fitted, 6 and should be 
protected from fraud. While our federal laws are excellent for keeping undesirables 
out of the country there is a noticeable lack of government protection for aliens admit¬ 
ted. They are suspicious, confused, unfamiliar with the new conditions, and unwil¬ 
ling to trust strangers who urge them to unknown and distant places. Thus they 
remain segregated and grouped in cities, a prey to padrones, pseudobankers, swindling 
labor agents and “white-slave dealers.” They can not easily distinguish between 
these frauds and the honest inducements offered by state industrial representatives. 

We have no central well-equipped labor exchange in the United States under 
recognized government auspices—such as one sees in Germany—devoted exclusively 
to the dependent classes, where illiterate foreigners can find employment and have 
a voice in choosing their work, aided by representatives of their own government. 
In such they place great confidence. 

Foreign government representatives are best able to distribute the alien masses 
here, whose characteristics they understand. Knowing the conditions from which 
they come these representatives can judge of those to which they should be sent, 
and in this manner entire families can be induced to settle in places where they are 
most needed. 


a The committee on congestion of population reports: “New York City has tho 
greatest congestion in the civilized world.” Doctor Stella, official delegate of the 
Italian Government to the Tuberculosis Congress at Washington, says: “While 
nine-tenths of Italians who emigrate to the United States come from rural districts 
of Italy, 77 per cent crowd in cities.” 

6 Labor agents, working for their commissions and not for the welfare of immigrants, 
have frequently sent tailors to a mine, masons to a cotton plantation, etc., while the 
natural farmers work in sweat shops and live in New York tenements. 






454 


HEARING ON IMMIGEATION BILLS. 


International cooperation . 

The Division of Information should procure the cooperation of foreign associates 
whose aid is obviously so essential. It is believed this could be obtained without 
new legislation. The act of February 20, 1907, authorizes the President, with the 
advice of the Senate, to enter into international agreements with foreign governments 
to regulate immigration matters. If practicable, the President might extend an 
invitation to each foreign nation to send a number of workers—not more than two 
or three—to act as associates with the manager of the division. 

When an order for Italian workmen comes to our American manager, he could request 
the Italian associate to move as speedily as possible the particular number of Italians 
required; Greeks could be moved by a Greek; Hungarians by a Hungarian, etc. The 
salaries of the foreign associates, paid by their respective governments, would be 
insignificant as compared with the expense these governments are now under in main¬ 
taining and returning those who become helpless from tuberculosis and other causes.® 

m. ASSISTED TRANSPORTATION. 

Another serious difficulty in distribution can be lightened if the States will provide 
the means for transporting aliens who settle within their borders.. A man must go 
to work the day after he arrives; he can not afford to spend his $25 in railroad fare, so 
he remains in the city tenement indefinitely. When work is scarce he may become 
a public charge, or worse. 6 If there is opportunity for him in the West or South and 
he lacks traveling expenses there should be some fund available from which he could 
borrow a sufficient amount at a moderate rate of interest; or a cooperative system 
might be patterned after one in operation between the government of New South 
Wales, the transportation companies, and Great Britain. 

Assisted passages in New South Wales. 

Persons living in England’s tenements are helped to emigrate to New South Wales 
by means of “assisted passages” which are purchased by the New South Wales .gov¬ 
ernment from the steamship companies at reduced rates and given gratis to thousands 
of applicants who otherwise would be unable to leave the cities. The central office 
at London is in charge of a general agent who receives all applications for labor, and 
obtains through the labor agent of New South Wales information concerning condi¬ 
tions, wages, etc., there. At Sidney incoming workers are met by the state labor 
agent and sent forward to their proper destinations. Those entering agricultural 
pursuits are granted liberal concessions. 

New South Wales has recognized the economic value of the system and is con¬ 
tributing £25,000 for “assisted passages.” According to a recent report emigration 
has now resolved itself into the number of berths available on each outgoing steamer, 
there being about three would-be emigrants to each berth. Over one-third of last 
year’s applicants were “nominated passengers;” that is to say, they were nominated 
by friends previously assisted who had found work advantageous in New South Wales. 


° Foreign consuls return to Europe many persons suffering and dying with tuber¬ 
culosis. Doctor Stella says: “To prove that tuberculosis instead of being imported is 
contracted by immigrants in this country, among 309,503 Italians immigrants who left 
Italy for the United States in two years there were but two cases of tuberculosis (due 
to the strict vigilance of the United States Government). Among those homeward 
bound during the same two years, there were 457 in the ships’ hospitals with tubercu¬ 
losis, besides 17 who died at sea.” 

Return passages were supplied by the Italian Benevolent Institute of New York, 
in five years, to 973 emigrants; about one-third of these were men afflicted with 
tuberculosis. 

From August 1 to September 17, 1909, 59 Italians, suffering from tuberculosis, were 
returned to Naples from the United States. The situation is similar with respect to 
other countries in Europe. 

b During the year 1907-8 there were 49,454 aliens detained in charitable reformatory 
and penal institutions of the North Atlantic and North Central States, while only 
3,487 were thus detained in the South Atlantic and South Central States, and 7,051 
in the Western States. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


455 


New South Wales system applied in the United States. 

A similar cooperative plan can be adopted here. The legislatures of each State 
and Territory could appropriate a special fund to be used when necessary for assisted 
transportation of admitted aliens. A state labor agent could be appointed in each 
State and Territory to study and make record of industrial and agricultural conditions 
there. These state agents could meet and select an agent-general to represent the 
States collectively in the Division of Information at New York, and to whom requests 
for labor could be forwarded. Data concerning working opportunities could be 
gathered by him from the labor agents of the respective States, and filed in the division 
with the general manager. Assisted passages could be procured through this agent- 
general. Should assisted transportation be regarded as a loan, the amount advanced 
could be collected in installments from the alien’s wages and returned to the State, 
either by the state labor agent or consular agent residing in the locality. 

This plan merely emphasizes the idea of cooperation and adds but one new element. 
The Division of Information now exists under the act above quoted, the various 
States have their agricultural and industrial boards and their election of a representa¬ 
tive is a simple matter. Little argument is needed to establish that the economic 
value of bringing workers within a State will far outweigh the cost of assisted passages. 
The new and essential element is that of foreign cooperation and favorable assurances 
in this regard have already been obtained from high officials abroad. It is believed 
that little difficulty may be expected, since other countries have already developed 
similar systems and appreciate their value. 

In this connection it is interesting to study Germany’s efficient system of bringing 
together the unemployed and working opportunities. 

IV. THE CENTRAL LABOR EXCHANGE AT BERLIN. 

In Berlin two substantial five-storied brick and stone buildings—large enough to 
accommodate 4,000 persons at one time—are devoted entirely to the unemployed. 
These are open in spring, summer, and autumn from 7 a. m. to 6 p. m., and in winter 
from 8 a. m. to 6 p. m. Men and women while waiting for work are comfortably housed 
in large, well-lit, attractive assembly halls. 

The exchange puts to work from 250 to 400 persons daily. In one year alone em¬ 
ployment was found for 95,678 men and women, while providing shelter for 158,098.® 
All this is carried on at a cost of £5,000 a year, £3,000 of which is government subsidy 
and £2,000 the contribution of applicants and trade unions. The machinery is simple 
and there are but 27 workers on the staff. The work is divided into three depart¬ 
ments—for unskilled working men and boys, for women and girls, and for skilled 
labor. Any person needing employment may apply to the exchange and pay a fee 
of 2£d., entitling him to a membership card for a period of three months. 

Departments for unskilled labor. 

The spacious assembly hall devoted to unskilled labor resembles the trading floor 
of a stock exchange. There daily from 1,290 to 1,500 men, awaiting work, sit smoking, 
chatting, or reading newspapers, grouped near various sign-posts labeled ‘ ‘ teamsters, ’ ’ 
“common laborers,” “farmers,” “masons,” etc., describing the kind of work for 
which they are adapted. These groups are subdivided by signs reading “January, 
February, March,” indicating the date at which the various workers filed applications. 
The manager, in his office at one side of the hall, receives orders for laborers by mes¬ 
senger, letter, and telephone. At intervals throughout the day he enters the hall, raps 
for silence, and reads aloud these orders; the waiting workers eagerly hand up their 
membership cards; the manager carefully-selects those most competent, giving prefer¬ 
ence to the ones who have ( waited longest and who have families dependent upon them. 
In separate rooms the workers can meet prospective employers. No pressure is exer¬ 
cised, but the terms of employment are fully explained. One who is not engaged, or 
who refuses the job, may recover his membership card and resume his place upon the 
waiting list. 

Many laborers are sent to farms throughout the country, and proprietors of large 
industries who employ many workmen have filed their exclusive orders with this 
exchange. They recognize the advantage in having a central official bureau at which 


a These figures are about the size of our tuberculosis statistics of deaths and sufferers 
in New York City alone. The total reckoning in all overcrowded cities of the United 
States would far outweigh the numbers sheltered and put to work in Germany. 



456 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


their requests are promptly filled. Rarely is the right man sent to the wrong place, for 
workers are collected in sufficient numbers to permit of intelligent discrimination and 
selection for the various classes of work. Those who seek to take advantage of the 
exchange are quickly detected and refused privileges of membership. 

Department for skilled labor . 

Labor unions heartily contribute to the maintenance of the exchange; therefore, 
union members are not required to pay an initiation fee. This department is sub¬ 
divided into various trades, with separate rooms for each, where an immense amount 
of information concerning labor conditions, wages, strikes, etc., is centralized. The 
managers of the branches are selected by the various unions. 

Department for women and girls. 

This department is managed by an experienced woman who understands the needs 
of individual workers. Applicants are arranged in specialized groups, similar to those 
in the department for unskilled labor, and the manager’s desk is in the same room. 
All sorts of female help is fitted into proper spheres, and careful attention is given to 
placing unmarried women and girls in good houses as domestics. Proper boarding 
houses are suggested to those out of work, and in special cases the exchange shelters 
a few. Business and goodfellowship are combined in this branch and practical advice 
is given and appreciated. 

The need of a similar branch for women and girls in our division of information at 
New York is shown in the recent report of the Congressional Commission on Immigra¬ 
tion as to the harboring of women in the United States for immoral purposes. 

The Berlin exchange can cooperate with every city and town in Germany, but 
similar bureaus in Munich and elsewhere have developed from it. a 

Here is a complete, simple, and work-finding institution which has proved the 
feasibility of cooperation. It is in sharp contrast with the New York branch of our 
national "distribution bureau, located in three small dismal rooms in the basement 
of the Maritime Building. The expense for maintenance of this branch of the Divi¬ 
sion of Information is about $30 a day, and in fifteen months it distributed 2,099 
workers, while the Berlin exchange, at an expense of but $68 a day, distributed in 
twelve months 95,678 men and women workers. What is the cause of this difference? 
Undoubtedly the serious defect in the mode of distribution, heretofore, has been the 
failure to work upon the problem on the basis of cooperation of all the interests involved. 

Cooperation, and but little further expense, is all that is necessary to make the Divi¬ 
sion of Information the greatest immigrant clearing-house in the world. Its present 
managers, with the splendid foundation they have laid and their vast knowledge of 
industrial and agricultural conditions throughout the country, are well qualified to 
make it a success. They have been handicapped by lack of support. 

How far may the National Government count upon the States and Territories to aid 
in this work, so that distribution may be impartially made on a basis fair to the alien 
and to his employer? The enforcement by the States of the laws against overcrowding 
would at once lead to a distribution of the surplus population and of arriving aliens. 
These could be gathered together in large central bureaus in New York, Chicago, and 
other cities. Some public-spirited person, or group of persons, might donate suitable 
buildings in these immigrant centers, and lease the same to the Government at a nom¬ 
inal rent. (The two ample exchange buildings in Berlin were made possible by con¬ 
tribution.) Wise selection for various classes of employment in the States and Terri¬ 
tories could be made by the foreign associates from the assembled workers, and foreign 
colonies could be promoted in rural districts. The further cooperation by the States 
in providing for assisted transportation, with the representation they would have in 
the division through their agent-general, would obviate present difficulties in sending 
the workers on, and lessen the insecurity with respect to repayment of advanced 
transportation. When workers and settlers reach the States and Territories they could 
be met by state agents, who could guide them to their proper destinations. 


a The exchange has a lunch room where coffee, with milk and sugar, can be bought 
for Jd., a sandwich or slice of sausage for l^d., etc., cigars 3 for a penny, and cigarettes 
5 a half-penny. Boots can be repaired and clothes mended and cleaned for a half¬ 
penny each. There is a medical and hospital room, with first-aid equipment, a free 
legal bureau, and in the basement a white-tiled bath room, where hot and cold shower 
baths, in separate rooms, including soap and clean towels, can be had for ^d. News¬ 
papers and magazines are furnished free by the exchange librarian. 








HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 457 

I believe that a cooperative work such as this would be conducive to the welfare of 
our country. Some of its results would be: 

Immigrant masses could be reached to better advantage, therefore their residence 
could be regulated. 

Alien traffic could be turned away from cities to sparsely populated sections and 
the demand for labor could always be met. 

The tuberculosis evil could be eradicated bv cleaning out the densely populated 
cities of the North. 

Healthy arriving peasants could be saved from tuberculosis and from other evils of 
tenements and sweat shops. 

Labor could be raised to a standard of respectability and the activities of unprin¬ 
cipled labor agents could be curtailed. 

Women and girls could be safeguarded against viciousness, and “white-slave traders ” 
could be driven out. 

Criminal and illegal immigration could be detected. 

Foreign colonies could be encouraged in rural districts. 

Citizenship could be advanced by a readier assimilation with our native born. 


[Extract from the report of the Chief of the Division of Information, Department of Commerce and 
Labor, dated Washington, July 1, 1908. Submitted by Mrs. Quackenbos.] 

On July 1, 1907, the Division of Information was established and at once opened 
up correspondence with the “proper officials of the States and Territories” by writing 
to each governor and to such other state officials as would be likely to provide informa¬ 
tion required. 

With a view to ascertaining where employment could be obtained by those desiring 
it, the various associations of manufacturers and individual employers of labor were 
written to, the idea being to secure information such as would be of benefit to arriving 
immigrants and others who desired to avail themselves of the services of the division. 
Through the manufacturers’ associations the addresses of individual manufacturers and 
employers were obtained and to each one a letter of inquiry was addressed as to whether 
they required workmen. Information was sought as to class of labor, wages paid, 
hours of employment, and conditions generally. The final question to each employer 
of labor was as follows: “ Do strikes or other labor difficulties exist in your jurisdiction? 
If so, kindly state cause of same.” An effort was also made to obtain the addresses 
of the various local labor organizations of the country, but without avail, and letters 
of inquiry were sent to the chief officers of the national and international trades unions. 
In each letter they were asked to advise as to labor conditions generally and to keep 
the division informed regarding disturbances in the labor world, the purpose being to 
place before the alien, or such other person as might desire it, accurate information 
concerning industrial conditions in an unbiased manner and then leave it to the 
applicant to elect whether to take advantage of the opportunity presented or not. 

Through the courtesy of the Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Agriculture, 
the township correspondents of that department to the number of 35,000 were corre¬ 
sponded with, and for the purpose of securing detailed and accurate information certain 
blank forms were submitted in order to give them an accurate idea of the work being 
done by the division. Each correspondent was requested to let the farmers of his 
district know of the existence of the division, its object, what information it wished 
to secure, and to invite them to write to it as to their needs for laborers or workmen. 

Inasmuch as the law specified that the information gathered by the division should 
be available to “such other persons as might desire the same,” it was deemed advisable 
to notify those with whom the division corresponded that citizens as well as aliens 
would be considered in presenting opportunities for employment. 

In order to reach those in need of farm labor and likely to require this class of help 
in the future the division corresponded with the editors of various periodicals devoted 
to agriculture, asking that they publish a news item setting forth the efforts to bring 
to the attention of admitted aliens and unemployed citizens the need for their services 
in localities where an actual scarcity of labor existed. Samples of the forms in use 
by the division were transmitted with each letter, asking that the one applicable to 
farm labor be reproduced for the benefit of the readers of the periodical, with request 
that they write the division if they required labor, domestics, or had farms to rent 
on shares. 

To the postmaster of every county seat in the United States and its Territories, to 
the number of 2,839, a letter was forwarded making inquiry as to whether small farms 
could be leased or purchased in the locality, and details as to price and terms of sale 
were also sought. In all of these letters full information as to climatic conditions, 




458 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


kind of crops, number of crops per year, and school, church, and transportation facili¬ 
ties were inquired after, and the person written to was informed that he need not 
confine himself to answering the questions specified, but might volunteer such other 
information as he might deem advantageous. 

In order to reach the farmers of the United States a system of postal-card inquiry 
was established, and, through the courtesy and cooperation of the Post-Office Depart¬ 
ment, cards were intrusted to the rural delivery carriers with instructions that they 
place a card in each box along the line of their routes. These cards contained a brief 
statement of the aims and purposes of the division, with directions to detach the 
return portion, fill it in, and mail to the Division of Information, stating whether they 
required blanks on which to make applications for farm laborers, common laborers, 
or mechanics. No mention was made of domestics, as the division soon found it prac¬ 
tically impossible to supply the demand for this class of labor, and was obliged to issue 
a circular letter setting forth the fact that the demand was far in excess of the supply. 

This work is now in progress, and over 2,000,000 cards have already gone out. As 
the answers are received, such blanks as are called for are mailed to the applicant. 
The purpose of this system of inquiry is to familiarize the division with the actual 
needs of the agriculturists of the country for labor and to ascertain the conditions of 
employment. 

Correspondence has been had with state boards of agriculture, bureaus of labor 
and statistics, with boards of trade and chambers of commerce of the various cities, 
and with factory-inspection departments of various States. This work, which was 
interfered with by the depression in finances which began to manifest itself in October, 
1907, is again under way, and the indications point to much successful work being 
done by the division in cooperation with these various agencies. 

In addition to all of this work, every newspaper item announcing the opening up of 
a factory or the beginning of work anywhere is made the basis of a letter of inquiry 
to the concern in question as to its possible need for labor. As will be readily under¬ 
stood, the work involves a great deal of preparation and requires much time, owing 
to the small force employed in the division. 

In order to make a practical use of the information received and to comply with 
the letter and spirit of the law in promoting a beneficial distribution of admitted aliens 
and others, the division recommended the establishment of branch offices in New 
York, Boston, Chicago, and Baltimore, these branches to be under the control and 
direction of men of experience and ability. The first of the offices to be established 
was at Ellis Island, but it became apparent that the full work intended by Congress 
could not be properly presented there, owing to the fact that aliens admitted to the 
United States and citizens out of employment would not go to Ellis Island for the pur¬ 
pose of securing information. 

The alien admitted and out of employment would not go to Ellis Island from the 
mainland for fear of being deported and American workmen would not apply at Ellis 
Island through a dread of being classed as aliens. A branch office was therefore estab¬ 
lished with headquarters at the Maritime Building, New York City. Canon L. Green, 
an experienced, painstaking, and capable officer, was placed in charge of it. The 
quarters provided for the branch consisted of one room, but in a short time it became 
necessary to secure larger quarters, and on May 1, 1908, several rooms in the same 
building fronting on Pearl street were leased for this branch of the service. The 
inspector in charge at once placed himself in communication with various benevolent 
and humanitarian societies which look after and guard the welfare of the various races 
making up the population of that city, and is now being aided by them in the work of 
distribution. 

All applications received by the Division of Information for laborers or workmen of 
any kind are at once recorded, classified, made up into bulletin form, and forwarded 
each day to the branch office at New York, where the inspector in charge places them 
before all persons who apply to him for information. 

t As was to be supposed, the establishment of the branch office aroused much opposi¬ 
tion among those interested in employment agencies and bureaus, for the Division of 
Information charges no fees, is open to all, and as its work and scope become better 
understood must eventually take the place of the other agencies of distribution. 
Although the actual practical work of distribution did not and could not begin until 
February, places were found for 840 persons prior to June 80. The States to which 
they were directed, the character of labor, number, and nationality are given in the 
tables on next two pages, in which it is deemed advisable to include the distribution 
to October 31, 1908: 

The principal duty of the division during the first year of its existence was to lay 
the foundation for successful work in the future, to inspire confidence, and to acquire 
such a knowledge of conditions throughout the country as would be of benefit to the 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


459 


division in promoting a beneficial distribution of aliens. This work has necessarily 
been very slow, the idea in view being to avoid errors in administering the law, to 
secure exact and accurate information, and to direct to places of employment only 
those fitted for the work ahead of them. One of the gratifying results of the work of 
the year comes in the shape of letters from those to whom labor has been directed, 
complimenting the division upon the character and accuracy of its work, and from 
those directed to opportunities, expressing satisfaction with the treatment received 
by them from the employers. 

Notwithstanding the fact that so many people have been directed to opportunities, 
few complaints have been made to the division either by employer or employed. 
An effort has been made to investigate the few complaints that have been recorded, 
and the information gained warrants the opinion that for the sake of gain, advantage 
would be taken of the ignorance of the workmen and conditions imposed which were 
not set forth or foreshadowed in making application for labor. In a few other instances 
it was discovered that workmen directed to opportunities failed to keep faith with 
the employer, but this was chiefly through ignorance of our language. On one occa¬ 
sion an alien directed from New York to an inland city, and whose transportation had 
been advanced by the employer, accepted the opportunity for the purpose of having 
his fare paid away from New York, and on reaching his destination refused to perform 
any duty for the person to whom he was directed. In each instance the division 
took steps to adjust the difficulty so far as it lay in its power, and, happily, was suc¬ 
cessful. The experience gained, however, was of value in that it suggested a remedy 
for the evils complained of and will serve as a guide for the future. 

The law directs that information gathered by the division be given “to all who 
may ask for it at the immigrant stations and to such others as may desire the same.” 
Under a liberal construction of the law, it has been deemed advisable to allow citizens 
out of employment an opportunity to avail themselves of the advantages presented 
by the division in providing information as to where employment could be obtained. 
Owing to the closing of factories and workshops following the depression of last year, 
the principal work of the division was to direct applicants to the farming districts. 

Up to the present time the laboring population of Europe have been in ignorance 
of the resources of the United States; to-day the principal information on which 
foreign workmen emigrate to the United States comes from the large cities and mining 
and manufacturing centers of the Union. The popular impression among the work¬ 
men of Europe is that the United States is one of four things, a city street, the bed 
of a railroad, a factory, or a coal mine. That there are fertile acres in the United 
States on which men may settle and thrive is not generally known among the work¬ 
men of Europe, and as those previously admitted have contented themselves with 
working upon the streets, along railroads, in factories, or in mines their correspondence 
with friends at home in the old country naturally induces others to come to these 
places. Under the direction and work of the division this condition of affairs must 
ultimately change, for every man directed to a congenial place on a farm, every man 
who becomes the possessor of a farm, every tenant, and every one who shares the 
profits of a farm will become a missionary, and in correspondence with friends in 
Europe will inform them that our resources do not consist solely of opportunities 
heretofore named, and in time the tide of immigration must turn away from the 
congested centers to the land. 

Under a strict construction of the law as now worded publications printed by the 
division shall be distributed “among all admitted aliens who may ask for such infor¬ 
mation at the immigrant stations of the United States and to such other persons as may 
desire the same.” Experience has demonstrated that the placing of a publication 
of any kind before a newly admitted alien at an immigrant station is valueless, for 
the newcomer is always excited, anxious, and in haste to proceed on his journey. 
He knows nothing of the contents of the document presented to him, has no time 
nor inclination to read it, and, if it is at all bulky, will not even accept it. In order 
to inform arriving aliens of the existence and purpose of the division, it would be 
well to place such matter as may be published before them while on shipboard after 
leaving the port of embarkation. Correspondence was had with various steamship 
and transportation lines to ascertain if they would cooperate with the division in 
this work, and favorable replies were received. 

Under the law as framed and constituted no information can be published abroad, 
but every thinking person must realize that information as to conditions in the United 
States does find its way to the homes of the people in Europe, much of this informa¬ 
tion is unreliable, some of it distorted, and during a voyage of ten days or two weeks 
the immigrants who are coming to our shores could at their leisure read or have read 
to them the information presented to them by the division, and they could study 
and digest it prior to landing. Being a government agency, bearing the seal and 
approval of the Government of the United States, facts presented would be accepted 


460 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


as reliable, the immigrant would have confidence in them, and on arrival in this 
country would apply to the various branches of the division for details as to oppor¬ 
tunities for employment or land to rent or purchase, etc. 

It should be the duty of the Division of Information to be able at a moment’s notice 
to give information to those requiring it, whether alien or citizen, concerning every 
opportunity for employment and the conditions of same in every part of the United 
States, whether in shop, mill, mine, factory, on railroad, or under municipal, county, 
or state control, or with public or private corporation. 

The inquiries submitted to agriculturists call for information relating to available 
acreage, whether for sale, rent, or to be let on shares, proximity to city or town, means 
of transportation, and fertility of land; kind, quality, and frequency of crops; denomi¬ 
nation and number of churches in neighborhood; number and grades of schools and 
length of school year; facilities for banking, and nationalities in neighborhood;and 
as the work develops and questions are suggested by the returns made to the division 
other lines of inquiry will be pursued until every known source will be followed and 
every useful item of information obtained. 

To gather information as directed by statute and give it to such arriving aliens as 
might ask for it would not be productive of much good and would not be in harmony 
with the spirit of the law or the intent of its makers. When times are normal there 
are men out of work in some places and employment awaiting men at other points. 
To ascertain the number, location, character, and every other essential thing con¬ 
cerning these vacancies, to learn what manner of men will qualify to fill them, and 
to bring man and work together with the least waste of time and money and to the 
satisfaction of employer and employed, would seem to be as much the duty of the 
Division of Information as the gathering and handing out information to aliens who 
might ask for it or to others who might desire the same. 

To more effectually deal with the question of imparting up-to-date information 
to admitted aliens and to warn them against the pitfalls ahead, it would be well to 
assemble them, after admission, and prior to departure, in a room or hall connected 
with the immigrant station and there explain to them in familiar language what to 
do and how to proceed after landing. The bulletins of the Division of Information 
could be read and explained and, in case of detention for any length of time, lectures 
on various topics of value to them could be delivered. With this idea in view the 
division, early in the year, instituted inquiry as to the practicability of making use 
of lantern slide exhibitions and the phonograph in this work, and without argument 
in favor of its benefits it is strongly urged that the matter be favorably considered. 
If it is, the full details may be arranged later. 

The Division of Information was fortunate in having the cooperation of a number 
of patriotic and philanthropic organizations, chief among them being the Sons of the 
American Revolution. This society prepared and placed at the disposal of the 
division a publication entitled “Information for Immigrants.” It deals with ques¬ 
tions relating to our form of government, and has been translated into Polish, Slo¬ 
venian, Yiddish, Croatian, Swedish, Lithuanian, Magyar, Slovak, Greek, Bohemian, 
Italian, German, and Danish, and is being circulated among admitted aliens and 
others. 

There exists no reason why the Division of Information may not become the avenue 
through which the congestion in large centers of population shall pass outward to 
places where remunerative employment may be had, through which the stream of 
immigration may intelligently and profitably flow and from which may come the 
answer to the question, What shall we do to properly direct the stream of immigra¬ 
tion and keep citizen and alien profitably employed? 

Respectfully, 


Hon. F. P. Sargent, 

Commissioner-General of Immigration. 


T. V. PoWDERLY, 

Chief Division of Information. 


EXTRACT FROM REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION, DATED WASH¬ 
INGTON, JULY 1, 1909. 

[Submitted by Mrs. Quackenbos.] 

In no instance was a strike, lockout, or other labor disturbance in progress or' con¬ 
templated at a time when any of those directed by the division went forward. It is 
apparent also that great care was exercised in the selection of those who applied for 
information and were directed to opportunities, for very few complaints have been 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


461 


filed with the division, and these have been more than offset by commendatory letters 
where employers have been satisfied and thanked the division for its work in direct¬ 
ing the labor where it was needed. 

The records of the division show that but 20 of those directed to employment failed 
to reach proper destination. Of this number the cost of transportation was advanced 
by the employer in 11 cases. Five of the 20 paid their own transportation expenses, 
and the cost of transportation in the other 4 cases was advanced by various charitable 
organizations. Of the 11 cases in which the employer advanced the cost of trans¬ 
portation, disappointment was avoided in 7 of them by directing other men, who paid 
their own transportation. 

In 2 of the 11 cases the employers reported that the men arrived, but in one instance 
that he left the railroad station next day without proceeding to the employer’s farm 
or notifying him of his arrival; in the other the employee undoubtedly arrived at or 
near the proper destination and went to work for another employer in that vicinity. 

Of the aforementioned 20 who went astray en route, 11 were destined to points west 
of Chicago, which necessitated a transfer from one railroad station to another at that 
point. This emphasizes the importance of adopting some system of regulating the 
passage through that city of aliens destined to points beyond. 

The fact that 2,202 of those applying for information located in New York State 
and 676 in New Jersey does not indicate that the inducements offered in those States 
were greater than those of other States. The lack of means to defray expenses* of 
transportation was, no doubt, a prime factor in determining many applicants to avail 
themselves of opportunities at points within those States to which the cost of trans¬ 
portation was not beyond their means. 

It must be borne in mind that the work of the Division of Information is yet in its 
initial stage; that its purpose and scope are just beginning to be understood. All of 
its work has been done in the face of adverse conditions. Actual distribution did not 
begin until nine months after the division began to collect information, and then in 
the midst of a financial and industrial depression the evil effects of which are but 
now being hidden by the smoke from furnaces, factories, and workshops that are 
again renewing the activities so suddenly paralyzed in October, 1907. 

Thousands of able, healthy, willing workers have anxiously scanned the records 
of opportunities presented to them by the Division of Information, only to turn away 
disappointed, for the most alluring of them lay at points hopelessly beyond their grasp 
because of financial inability to reach destination. Even when the panic was at its 
height, the Division of Information could have directed thousands of people to places 
where they could secure employment on the land, were it not for the lack of means 
on the part of applicants to defray traveling expenses. 

Forty-five nationalities contributed to the number of those benefited by the work 
of the division. Many of those applying for help express a preference for certain 
nationalities or races. The division has therefore included in the list of questions 
submitted to prospective employers one which gives them the opportunity to state 
whether they have a choice in the matter. 

Among aliens, those coming from northern Europe are preferred by perhaps a 
majority of applicants for farm labor. As the value of the southern European as a 
fruit grower becomes known, the demand for his services grows in volume. 

A total of 26,477 applicants for information were served at the branch offices of the 
division during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1909. Care was exercised in noting 
these applicants so as to avoid duplication. While the same person may have made 
inquiry on several different occasions, he was listed but once. The figures given do 
not and can not show the full number benefited by receipt of information, for many 
applicants represented groups ranging from 5 to 50. The division has no means of 
ascertaining how many acted on the information received. 

When an applicant makes his selection and is specifically directed to an opportunity, 
he is provided with a note of introduction to the prospective employer. This serves 
to identify him, and the employer is requested to notify the division of his arrival. 
In cases where applicants call at the branch offices of the division, look over the oppor¬ 
tunities presented, make notes of the same, and take the addresses of prospective 
employers, it is impossible for the division to ascertain how many of these are em¬ 
ployed, since the employers are not requested to notify the division of their arrival, 
an4 unless conditions are not favorable to either party no information will reach the 
division concerning the matter. 

CHARGE OF FURNISHING STRIKE BREAKERS. 

A report gained circulation during the year that the Division of Information was 
furnishing strike breakers to cigar-manufacturing firms in Pennsylvania. The facts, 
briefly stated, are as follows: On October 23, 1908, Emanuel Cadilak, of 371 East 


462 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Seventy-second street, New York, called at the New York branch of the division, 
No. 17 Pearl street, and made the statement that 400 cigar workers were wanted by 
the Harrisburg Cigar Company, at Harrisburg, Pa. He stated labor conditions were 
good, that no strikes or labor troubles were in progress, and that the union scale of 
wages would be paid. On October 24, when the matter was referred to the division, 
a letter w*as sent to the secretary of the American Federation of Labor inquiring 
whether there was “a strike or lockout in progress or in contemplation, also the union 
scale of wages for Harrisburg.” The letter was answered on the same day by the 
president of the American Federation of Labor, who, among other things, said he 
could not “definitely answer either question you propound, but I can state that there 
are now in the United States fully 25 per cent of the cigar makers of the country unem¬ 
ployed.” On receipt of this communication, on October 24, the secretary of Cigar 
Makers’ Local Union No. 244, of Harrisburg, was written to with request that he 
“inform the division as to the regular union scale of wages which prevails in the cigar¬ 
making industry in your district. We would like this in detail, showing wages paid 
to female as weil as male help; also inform us if there is a scarcity of labor existing in 
the Harrisburg cigar factories at this time.” That letter was dated October 24, 1908; 
an early reply was requested. An answer was received on November 13, 1908, in 
which the secretary said, “Positively no demand for cigar makers, union or nonunion. 
* * * u n i on wages start at $7 per 1,000 to $13 per 1,000.” The question referring 
to strikes or lockouts was not answered. 

Through unofficial channels it was learned that no strike was then in progress and 
that no strike had taken place in recent years in the cigar trade in Harrisburg or 
vicinity. 

On November 5, 1908, Mr. Cadilak again called at 17 Pearl street, and as agent of 
the Columbia Cigar Company, of Columbia, Pa., made application for 100 girls to go 
to Columbia to engage in cigar working. He made the same statement concerning 
labor conditions as in the case of the Harrisburg Cigar Company. It appears that Mr. 
Cadilak about this time inserted an advertisement in certain New York papers, pub¬ 
lished in foreign languages, advising those desirous of going to Harrisburg and Columbia 
to apply at No. 17 Pearl street (the New York branch of the division) for particulars. 
This was unauthorized by anyone connected with the division, and information 
concerning it was not received until workmen applied for details as to terms of employ¬ 
ment in response to said advertisements. Those who called were given such informa¬ 
tion as could be gathered. A number, perhaps 30, went to Columbia. When reports 
were received to the effect that they were not being treated properly, the inspector 
in charge of information work at 17 Pearl street wired the division, on November 20, 
1908, as follows: “Advisable to investigate Columbia and Harrisburg cigar factories.” 
Immigrant Inspector John J. Grgurevich, attached to the Baltimore immigrant station, 
was detailed by the bureau to investigate conditions in the cigar factories, not only 
in Harrisburg and Columbia, but in adjoining territory as well. Instructions were 
issued to branch offices of the division not to direct any persons to either Harrisburg 
or Columbia until after a thorough investigation had been made, but notwithstanding 
this fact a number of those applying at the New York branch of the division, and who 
were advised not to go, went to both places. 

Mr. Grgurevich made a thorough and painstaking investigation and submitted a 
full and comprehensive report of his findings. From this report, which is too lengthy 
to include with this, it was learned that the New York agent of the cigar-manufacturing 
firms in question had either misrepresented conditions of employment or else failed 
to impart full information to those whose services he had engaged. Aside from the 
questions of wages or hours of employment, the Division of Information regarded it 
as inadvisable to direct the attention of seekers for information to the cigar factories 
involved. 

It was clearly proved that no strike or lockout was in progress or in contemplation 
or that either had occurred in recent years in that particular part of Pennsylvania. 

The report, therefore, that the Division of Information was furnishing strike breakers, 
or was being used for that purpose, even remotely, was without foundation. 

NECESSITY FOR OTHER BRANCHES. 

An effort was made during the year to establish a branch of the division in Chicago, 
Ill. It was the intention to secure quarters which would be adequate to the needs 
of the Immigration Service in Chicago and at the same time provide space for the 
inspector in charge of information work, who was to be assisted in his duties by the 
entire immigration force in Chicago. The necessary room could not be found, and in 
order to initiate the work of distribution in Chicago one of the immigrant inspectors 
was detailed to act as inspector in charge of information work. He was instructed to 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


463 


investigate and report on a number of offices. One of the places reported on by this 
officer was approved of and a lease entered into for the balance of the fiscal year. It 
was deemed inadvisable to renew the lease and as a consequence the branch office in 
Chicago was not continued. 

The Division of Information is of opinion that a branch of the division should be 
established in Chicago, Ill., and another in St. Louis, Mo. Applications by the 
thousand are on file from the Western and Southwestern States to which no one can 
be directed because of lack of funds on the part of those seeking information and the 
great distance from the Atlantic seaboard. 

Chicago and St. Louis have thousands of able, willing men out of employment before 
whom the division could lay its best opportunities, but there is no way of reaching 
them or of imparting this information to them. 

If during the coming year arrangements can be made to secure office room for the 
Immigration Service in these two cities commodious enough to give space to a branch 
of the Division of Information, it will enable this branch of the service to “promote 
a beneficial distribution of aliens” and others who may be in need of information 
concerning opportunities to engage in labor on farms, to settle on land, or to engage 
in profit sharing on the land. 

ADAPTABILITY OF SETTLERS. 

The effort to divert the tide of immigration to agricultural sections of the country 
is of doubtful value unless conditions are favorable. Soil and climate should be 
suitable, the latter approximating to that of the home of the immigrant, the former 
not only fertile but adapted to crops like those the immigrant, if a farmer, was accus¬ 
tomed to raising at home. Many other things enter into the question of a “beneficial 
distribution” of aliens and others. The person directed by the division must be 
protected from the greed of those who would possibly take advantage of his ignorance. 
So far as possible, those who do not speak English should be directed to localities where 
others of their race have settled, for the most heartbreaking experience that can come 
to a man is to find himself anchored in a place where he can not converse in his mother 
tongue—or any other—with his neighbors. More aliens have, perhaps, remained in 
large cities or congested centers or have drifted back to them through this cause than 
any other. 

CONCLUSION. 

In conclusion attention is called to the fact that in an endeavor to promote a bene¬ 
ficial distribution of admitted aliens the utmost conservatism has been exercised 
as regards conduct of the division and its branch offices, selection of men for direc¬ 
tion to opportunities, and financial expenditures. Such results as have accrued in 
the way of distribution are traceable to a genuine demand for laborers in the agri¬ 
cultural sections. Employers were not only ready to cooperate with the division 
to the extent of submitting applications, but were willing in many instances to advance 
transportation. The division is satisfied that, apart from ignorance of our language 
on the part of a large number of immigrants and the want of transportation money, 
the principal drawback is the lack of understanding on the part of newcomers regard¬ 
ing our agricultural resources, methods of farming, and advantages to be derived 
away from the crowded cities. Inducements to settlers on the land constitute a 
line of inquiry as yet hardly touched upon. It would be instrumental in distribu¬ 
tion, but progress in this direction has been retarded in the interest of economy. 
Propositions of this nature require investigation prior to the direction of anyone, and 
investigations can not be conducted by correspondence. 

The argument that the division induces immigration is without foundation in 
fact, and no evidence has been produced to support it. Immigration will continue 
as long as the law permits; those who are here bring others in times of prosperity, 
and the only question is whether they shall be allowed to settle, as heretofore, in 
the crowded centers or be directed to opportunities elsewhere. It was with a full 
realization of the need for distribution that Congress created the Division of Infor¬ 
mation, and its importance, now that prosperity will swell the tide of immigration, 
is augmented. Success in large measure can only come by slow growth and experi¬ 
ence gained through persistent effort. All things considered, the division has, so 
far, performed its work well. The good it has done outweighs the criticisms, many 
of them made in ignorance of facts, and the benefits conferred on employer and 
employee entitle it to consideration and support. 

Respectfully, T. V. Powderly, 

Chief, Division of Information. 

To Hon. Danl. J. Keefe, 

Commissioner-General of Immigration. 



464 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


BLANK FORMS USED BY THE DIVISION OF INFORMATION. 

[Submitted by Mrs. Quackenbos.] 

[Information blank. Form C.] 

No.- Department of Commerce and Labor, (Settlers.) 

Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, 

Division of Information, 

Washington. 

The following questions relative to lands for sale or rent must be answered before 
your proposition can be intelligently presented to prospective purchasers or renters: 

1. Name and complete address of owner or agent authorized to enter into contract 

with prospective purchaser or renter:-, --,-. 

2. Two references: -,-. 

3. Are lands for sale or rent? -. 

4. Price, sale or rental, conditions in full (in cases where farms are worked on shares 

or for sale on long-time contracts a copy of the lease or contract should be forwarded 
with this blank): -. 

5. Number of one-man farms (that is, of an area that can be cultivated by one 

man): -. 

6. Size of such one-man farms: -. 

7. Is land under cultivation? -. 

8. If rented on shares, how divided? Does owner provide stock, implements, or 

seeds? -. 

9. Kinds of crops: -. 

10. Character of soil: -. 

11. Location of lands: -. 

12. Is irrigation necessary; and if so, under what conditions is water supplied?-. 

13. What are the rail, water, or wagon-road facilities for transportation? -. 

14. Nationalities preferred: -. 

15. What are the inducements to settlers? 

Pvemarks: -. 

(Date.) 


Sign here.) 
























HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


465 

(domestics.) 


Information blank. Form D. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR, 

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, 

DIVISION OF INFORMATION. 

WASHINGTON. 

No.-. 

The applicant for domestic help should give careful specific replies to the following 
questions: 

1. Employer: -,-,-,-,-. 

2. References: -,-. 

3. Number of domestics desired: -. 

4. Nature of duties: -. 

5. Nationalities preferred: -. 

6. Would either single or married women be acceptable? -. 

7. Would children be objectionable? -. 

8. Could employment be found for husbands? -. 

9. Wages you intend paying domestics: -—. 

10. Will a home be provided? -. 

11. (a) Will transportation be paid from point within United States? -. 

( b) Will amount be deducted later from employee’s wages? -. 

12. Will employment be permanent? -. 

13. Hours required: -. 

14. Advantages offered to employees: -. 

Remarks: -. 

(Date.) -. 

(Sign here.)- 

[Note.—A dditional sheets may be used if necessary.] 


Information blank. Form E. 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, 

DIVISION OF INFORMATION, 

WASHINGTON. 

No.-. 

Please give answers in detail to the following questions relative to churches, schools, 
etc., in your immediate neighborhood: 

1. State in or near what city, town, or village you are located; also give county and 

State: -,-,-. 

2. Denomination of churches in the neighborhood. (Churches at which foreign lan¬ 
guage is spoken should be indicated by the language spoken as well as by the denom¬ 
ination; for example, “German Lutheran,” “Polish Catholic,” etc.) 

1. -. 2. -. 3. -. 4. -. 5. -. 6. -. 7. -. 

8 . -. 

3. What are the school facilities and to what grades do the schools extend? -. 

4. Is there a high school near by?-. 

5. What is the length of the school year?-. 

6. What are the predominating foreign nationalities in your vicinity?-. 

7. Are there persons near by who speak the language of the alien help you have 

applied for?-. . . 

8. What is the prevailing climate in your vicinity?-. 

49090—10-30 











































466 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Information blank. 
Form B. 


[For use in making application for farm help.] 


(farm laborers.) 


Department of Commerce and Labor, 

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, 
DIVISION OF INFORMATION, 


WASHINGTON. 


No.-. 

[See notations on back hereof before attempting to fill out this blank. Write name and address plainly.] 


1. Employer: -,-,-,-,-• 

2. References: -. 

3. Number of men you wish to hire: -. 

4. Nature of duties: -. 

5. (a) Nationalities acceptable (state whether or not knowledge of English is neces¬ 
sary) : -. 

(b) Will English-speaking men of any other nationality be acceptable? -. 

(c) Do you desire experienced help or “green hands?” -. 

6. (a) Married or single men preferred: 


b) Do you require that married men be accompanied by wives? -. 

x c) Will children be objectionable? -. 

7. (a) Will transportation be paid from points within the United States? 
'b) If so, will amount be deducted later from employee’s wages? 


(c) Will you refund the money so deducted after a period of service; and if so, 
under what conditions? -. 

8. (a) What money wage will you pay to married man {f "rienced hand? $-} 

per month and will house (furnished or unfurnished), garden patch, milk, etc., be 

provided free in addition to wages? -. 

(6) Would services of wife be required; and if so, her duties and compensation 
therefor? -. 

(c) What wages will you pay single manhand? $- }P er month ' 

and will board, lodging, washing, etc., be furnished free in addition to wages? ———. 

(d) Are summer wages same as winter wages?-. If not, give each: Winter, 

• per month; summer, $-per month. 


9. When will services of this help be required? 

10. Hours of labor: -. 

11. Will employment be permanent? -. 

12. Special advantages and remarks: -. 

(Date)-. 


READ CAREFULLY BEFORE FILLING OUT BLANK. 

In addition to answering carefully all »the questions on this blank, your especial 
attention is called to the following: 

Question 4. Nature of duties. —Define whether a “farmer” or a “farm laborer” 
is wanted. A “farmer” will be understood to mean one who is competent to take 
charge of and operate a farm without supervision. A “farm laborer” will be under¬ 
stood to mean one who has had some experience, but is to work under the immediate 
direction and supervision of the employer. If a “green hand” will be accepted as 
a farm laborer, it should be so stated. Also make it clear whether you operate a 
“dairy farm,” “stock farm,” “truck farm,” etc. 

Question 5. Nationalities 'preferred .—As much scope as possible should be allowed 
in the matter of nationalities which would be acceptable to you. 

Question 6. Married or single men preferred. —If your preference be for a man and 
wife, state whether or not a single man will answer, provided we are unable to supply 
the married couples. This is asked because at times there is a scarcity of the latter. 

Question 7. Will transportation be paidfrom point within United States f —The neces¬ 
sity for this question is due to the fact that many good men apply at our branch offices 
who would willingly go to distant points, but are unable to do so without aid from 
the prospective employer. Such advance would, of course, be made through a 



































HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


467 


representative of this division, who would see that the employee was properly tick¬ 
eted and then mail his baggage check direct to the employer interested, which would 
serve somewhat as a precaution against an employee going astray. 

It must be distinctly understood, however, that the responsibility of the division 
and its representative ends when the said employee has been placed upon the train 
or boat. No guaranty is given or implied that he will actually arrive at his destination. 

Question 8. Wages .—This question must not be left unanswered, because of the 
fact that an employee wants to have some idea as to the wages he is to receive before 
accepting an offer, and this point should be definitely stated. If wages are stated 
at so much per day, it should be made clear whether employee is paid every day in 
the month or only for such days as work can be performed. Also approximate pay 
received per week or month in such case. 

All communications relative hereto should be addressed as follows: Division of 
Information, Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Commerce 
and Labor, Washington, D. C. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Monday , March 14, 1910. 

The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m., Hon. Benjamin F. Howell 
(chairman) presiding. Others present were Representatives Hayes, 
Burnett, Sabath, Moore, of Pennsylvania, and O’Connell. 

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ADOLPH J. SABATH, REPRE¬ 
SENTATIVE FROM CHICAGO, ILL. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as we are about to take a vote on 
the provisions to increase the head tax and to provide for an edu¬ 
cational test, I desire to discuss briefly these questions and some of 
the other important provisions contained in the Hayes, Elvins, and 
Gardner bills, which we have before us. 

Section 1 of the Hayes bill provides for an increase of the head tax 
on every immigrant from $4 to $10, and in the Elvins bill to $25. 
Why we should increase the tax I do not know, unless it be to further 
restrict immigration and place more difficult, yes, in a majority of 
cases impossible, obsturctions in the way of poor immigrants. We 
have no deficit in our immigrant fund, and the revenue derived from 
the present tax more than suffices to meet all our expenditures in the 
Immigration Service. 

Section 2 prescribes an educational test, again aiming to restrict and 
prevent thousands upon thousands of honest and hard-working people, 
the majority of whom come from rural or farming districts. The 
educational test proposed in these bills would not affect those immi¬ 
grants who come from the larger centers, for they, as a rule, are literate. 
You will find that the people who come from the countries from which 
we receive the majority of illiterates, the percentage of these which 
are unfortunate enough to be sent to our penal institutions for com¬ 
mitting some crimes or offenses, is smaller than from the countries 
from which we receive the majority of literate immigrants. In other 
words, the percentage of criminals is greater among literate people 
than among the illiterate ones. And I firmly believe that those wtlo 
have been deprived of the opportunity of an education in their own 
countries, through no fault of their own, will and do perform manual 
labor as intelligently and as conscientiously on farms, in shops, fac¬ 
tories, and mines as those who were more fortunate in having the 



468 


HEABING ON IMMIGBATION BILLS. 


advantages of education. Besides, those who do possess an education 
are apt to and do shy from performing the work which the illiterate 
immigrant performs. 

This section also contains a provision making it obligatory upon all 
male aliens over 16 years of age, and all unmarried or widowed 
females over 18 years of age, to possess in their own right at least 
$25 in lawful money of the United States or its equivalent in other 
moneys. In the Elvins bill the minimum amount which such aliens 
must possess is fixed at the preposterous sum of $100. This require¬ 
ment is utterly unreasonable, and in many respects it is cruel. If 
enacted, it would practically build an almost insurmountable barrier, 
which would prevent the vast majority of immigrants from entering 
this country. This requirement is not founded upon any law, inas¬ 
much as it seeks to establish property qualifications, which is a 
proposition inherently odious to tree people. 

Another feature which is embodied in this section of the Hayes 
bill, and which is also found in the Elvins bill, is that which excludes 
all aliens who do not bring a certificate of good moral character, 
signed by and under the seal of the proper official whose duty it is 
to keep such record in the community from which they come. It 
would be impossible to obtain such a certificate, because the author¬ 
ities, for reasons of a political, or religious, or of a military nature, 
even then, as they do now, refuse to issue such certificates to persons 
who would come under their ban. The curse of militarism which 
pervades Europe is the reason for many honest and sincere immi¬ 
grants leaving their native countries; and the oppressed and perse¬ 
cuted people would be completely at the mercy of their persecutors, 
who, in the main, are governmental officials. From an impartial 
standpoint, it is impossible to construe all of these requirements 
which appear in section 2 of the Hayes bill and which are also em¬ 
bodied in the Elvins bill in any other way than a palpable intent to put 
an end to immigration. 

Section 4 of the Hayes bill, which provides for the deportation of 
criminal aliens, and which is also found in the Elvins bdl, does not 
require any attention, because we have already passed a separate 
bill upon this matter. In passing, however, I will say that the 
language employed in both the Hayes and Elvins bills upon the sub¬ 
ject of deportation of criminal aliens makes this section uncon¬ 
stitutional. 

Section 5 of the Hayes bill seeks to repeal that portion of the im¬ 
migration act which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor to accept bonds in certain cases where aliens are detained at 
at the various ports of the United States against whom deportation 
orders have been entered. Under this section aliens would be de¬ 
ported even more summarily than now. 

Section 6 provides for the exclusion of all girls under 20 years of 
age, unaccompanied by one or both of their parents, subject, how¬ 
ever, to the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and 
under such rules and regulations as he may from time to time pre¬ 
scribe. There is no necessity for any provision of this kind, as we 
have passed a most stringent “ white slave ” bill, which will, if 
properly enforced, reach every attempt at this nefarious traffic. This 
section can only be construed as giving the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor greater restrictive power, and the more power you give 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


469 


an individual, the more he is likely to abuse it. Besides there are 
thousands of honest and virtuous girls who would be prevented from 
coming to this country, who seek situations as domestic servants. 
As it is, there is quite a scarcity of good servants, and we need all 
that we can get. 

Section 7 contains the most ridiculous and absurd provision which 
has ever been injected into a bill. This farcial provision also found 
in the Elvins bill, provides that every unnaturalized alien shall within 
one year after either of these bills becomes a law, obtain a certificate 
of residence which shall contain his full description as will readily 
identify him, which certificate shall contain a photographic likeness, 
both full face and profile, bearing the seal of the Department of 
Commerce and Labor; and the failure of such unnaturalized alien 
to obtain this certificate of residence within one year will be sufficient 
ground for his deportation. Under this provision it matters not how 
long he may have lived here, if he failed to comply with this ridiculous 
provision, and subject himself to the ignominy of what practically 
amounts to a Bertillon test for criminals, he would be apprehended 
on a warrant of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor and deported. 
The consequent injury and damage to such a person and his family 
is not given the slightest attention or consideration in this provision, 
and the prejudice toward immigrants as exemplified in this section 
is most palpable and admits of no dispute. 

Section 10 of the Hayes bill contains a provision that all unnatural¬ 
ized aliens who seek permission to enter the United States upon the 
ground of being members of the learned professions, or teachers, 
merchants, bankers, editors, or students, or travelers for curiosity 
or pleasure, shall produce a certificate showing the permission of the 
government of which they are subjects or domiciled residents to 
travel or pursue their avocations in this country, and this certificate 
must be visaed by our diplomatic or consular officials at the port or 
place from which such aliens are about to depart. It is also required 
that a photographic likeness of such person is attached to an affidavit 
which must set forth a great deal of irrelevant data, which, of course, 
must be investigated and passed upon by our officials. If this pro¬ 
vision were to pass, we would be the objects of ridicule the world 
over, and, aside from being made a “ laughingstock, ” many serious 
complications with respect to our treaties would arise, which would 
result in an interminable confusion and subject American travelers 
to the same humiliation in foreign countries as is attempted in this 
section. There is no question but that the foreign powers would 
retaliate in kind. 

In the same section of the Elvins bill there is a provision which 
requires that such persons shall be excluded from admission into this 
country who are between the ages of 16 and 50 years who can not 
pass the physical examination prescribed for recruits by the military 
regulations of the United States Army. The utter absurdity of this 
provision is too apparent, but I call your attention to it simply for 
the purpose of showing you to what extremes the foes of immigration 
will go. 

I have summed up some of the most important features contained 
in both the Hayes and the Elvins bills. These bills are utterly 
unfair and unjust to the poor though honest immigrant who seeks 
to better his condition in life, and who endeavors to escape from 


470 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


persecutions and oppressions. I believe that these bills are the most 
drastic that have ever been introduced in Congress since its inception, 
and they reek with prejudice and bias toward the immigrant. The 
provisions contained in these bills are so despotic in their nature that 
they ought not have even a place in the legislative archives of Con¬ 
gress. 

Mr. Chairman, from time to time we have certain people urging 
restriction against immigration. And the question arises, who 
demands it ? Why should our Government adopt still greater 
restrictive measures against immigration ? There are some who 
honestly believe that the large immigration is detrimental to our 
labor conditions, but the majority of those who raise the hue and cry 
against immigration are least informed upon this great question, 
and as a rule come from those sections of the country to which immi¬ 
grants do not come, and in consequence their arguments are pregnant 
with prejudice and ignorance. No one who has carefully studied 
the conditions of our country can successfully deny that the tre¬ 
mendous progress and development of the country is largely due to 
the foreign-born people and their descendants. In fact, this proposi¬ 
tion does not admit of dispute. But even if they had not contributed 
so much to the country’s welfare as they had, shall we not extend 
welcome to humanity which seeks freedom and emancipation from 
governmental oppression and despotism ? 

Our Government guarantees under and by virtue of the Constitu¬ 
tion liberty, and liberty is the goal which the alien strives to reach. 
Once reached it serves as an incentive for improvement, and within 
a short time he becomes Americanized and is ideal material for 
American citizenship. It take biit a short time that he becomes one 
of us, and no one can question his patriotism, honesty, industry, and 

I )rogress. If you have any doubt as to his patriotism look over the 
ist of our enlisted men in the army and navy service, or the rolls upon 
which appear the names of the heroic volunteers who battled in our 
wars and your doubt will surely be dispelled. 

It is absolutely essential in order to maintain the great progress of 
this country that we should not further restrict immigration. The 
industry of the country requires and demands the labor of the for¬ 
eigner, and it is erroneous to presume that the immigrant is a com¬ 
petitor with our American labor. On the contrary, the employment 
of immigrant labor creates a demand for better American labor, for 
a better grade of labor, and it is productive of better wages for our 
workingmen. The work performed by the immigrant is that of the 
hardest kind, work of a character for which it is well nigh impossible 
to obtain American labor, yet, which nevertheless must be performed 
and without the aid of which American labor would suffer. It is 
variously estimated that over 550,000 workingmen are either killed 
or injured each year in the course of their wort, and the grim law of 
necessity requires that these unfortunate men who are claimed by 
our commerce and industry must be replaced. What would be our 
position were we not favored with immigrant labor ? It is this class 
of labor which makes it possible for our manufacturers to compete 
with the world, thereby creating new fields and new markets for our 
goods and products, and, as I have stated before, creates new demands 
for *a higher and better grade of labor, with increased wages. This is 
best illustrated by the report of the Department of Commerce and 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


471 


Labor, which shows that for the fiscal year 1910 our mamlfacturers , 
exports will reach the enormous sum of $750,000,000, against 
$453,000,000 in 1902, $258,000,000 in 1896, and $179,000,000 in 
1890, an increase in twenty years of $576,000,000, or 445 per cent. 
So as to make it clear to everyone, the average daily exports did not 
amount to $600,000 per day in 1890, but to-day the dailv exports 
from this country will exceed the huge sum of $2,500,000 a day for 
the fiscal year of 1910. Now, let me ask of the most rabid restric- 
tionist whether we could do this, or if it would be possible to expand 
our export trade as 1 have shown, if we did not have the labor? 
Where scarcity of common labor exists there is a material deteriora¬ 
tion in commerce and industry, and for a practical illustration of 
this proposition I refer you to the conditions prevailing in Germany, 
which country finds itself greatly embarrassed by the scarcity of 
common labor, making it impossible for its merchants and manu¬ 
facturers to fill orders for their manufactures and products. And 
there are other places which face the same predicament, and even 
in this country there are many localities clamoring for labor, for 
shops, factories, mills, mines, and also for the farms. And to prove 
my contention I shall read one of the many resolutions which I have 
received: 

The State School of Agriculture, 

Morrisville, N. Y, March 12, 1910. 

The following resolutions were adopted at a recent meeting of the board of trustees 
of the State School of Agriculture, at Morrisville: 

11 Resolved, That it is the opinion of the board of trustees of the State School of Agri¬ 
culture, at Morrisville, N. Y., that one of the crying needs of the farmers of the State 
of New York and of the country at large is an adequate supply of intelligent farm 
labor; and this board gives its hearty approval to any action which can or may be 
taken by the National Congress or the legislature of the State of New York to supply 
such labor through the enlargement of the present national Bureau of Distribution 
and the creation by New York State of the proposed bureau recommended by the 
state commission, which in 1908-9 investigated labor conditions in New York. 

“ Resolved, That this resolution be spread upon the minutes of this board and copies 
thereof forwarded to the proper authorities at Albany and Washington. 

11 Resolved, That the secretary of this board be directed to carry on the purpose of 
these resolutions.” 

Yours, truly* John H. Broad, Secretary. 

That immigration has been and is now of great benefit no one can 
successfully deny. But you gentlemen, the same as others who are 
but slightly acquainted with the progress and development of our 
country, must recognize and admit that immigration has brought 
about our great wealth and prosperity. Look back a few short vears 
before immigration commenced and see how millions and millions 
of acres of land in the Middle West, Northwest, and West were dor¬ 
mant and unproductive, which could have been easily purchased for 
one, two, or three dollars per acre, and to-day the same lands, due to 
immigration, have increased from ten to one hundred times in value. 
The thousands and thousands of honest, thrifty, and industrious 
immigrants, who settled amid untold hardships upon the prairies and 
swamps of this country, have converted these lands, heretofore useless 
and practically of no value, into veritable gardens, rich and pro¬ 
ductive farms, and large and enterprising towns and cities. Last 
week we had before us a gentleman representing the Farmers’ Educa¬ 
tional and Cooperative Union, urging an illiteracy test, increase of 
the head-tax, a money test, and “other effective restrictive measures.” 


472 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


I am frank to say that I have never before heard about this so-called 
Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union, whose officials and 
representatives state without a tremor of self-reproach that the 
membership is anywhere from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 farmers living 
in all parts of the country. According to these representatives this 
vast membership is opposed to the present immigration laws, and 
they demand more “effective restrictive measures.” Really, I 
should like to know just what the actual membership is, and where 
they come from. Their object and purpo.se, according to the state¬ 
ments coming from some of these officials, is selfish, and their con¬ 
tention that “less farm products, the higher the prices received 
therefor,” deserves not the slightest consideration, and I condemn it 
as utterly unprincipled. Last month we had before us a gentleman 
representing the Junior Order United American Mechanics, of the 
State of New York, who stated that this order is opposed to the 
present immigration law, and desires the Congress to enact more 
stringent legislation. This order, I am reliably informed, is the same 
as the old bigoted A. P. A. party, merely operating under a new T name. 

My patriotism would not permit me to stand here and advocate the 
cause of immigration were I not convinced and satisfied in my belief 
that immigrant labor is not detrimental to our workingmen. It goes 
without saying that the American Federation of Labor has accom¬ 
plished a great deal of good for, the cause of labor, and humanity; 
it has aided in securing a material betterment of the working condi¬ 
tions, and it has helped to bring about a higher standard of wages for 
the workingmen. I am thoroughly in sympathy with its purposes, 
and I agree with its great leaders upon nearly all propositions except 
their contention on this question of immigration. I can not see any 
justice in their opposition to immigration, and I am confident that 
they will soon come to realize that it is but a matter of fairness to the 
thousands of oppressed, persecuted, and starving men, women and 
children who seek to make this country their future home, that they 
will withdraw their opposition and extend a hearty welcome to im¬ 
migrants. This, I am positive can not and will not in any way affect 
our own conditions, but it will bring good cheer and happiness to 
thousands of unfortunate fellow-beings who would be prevented to 
enter this country if the bills which w r e have before us should be en¬ 
acted into law. Besides, there is a question even in the minds of 
those who most earnestly demand this legislation with respect to its 
effect upon our labor conditions, why then ought not the benefit of 
the doubt be given to those unfortunate people who will be ever thank¬ 
ful and properly appreciate our hospitality. 

Mr. Chairman, the problem of immigration is one which settles 
itself. I believe that it is entirely unnecessary to legislate any 
further in this matter, for the present laws are strict enough in every 
respect. Instead, we should pass H. R. 18399, introduced by me last 
January, which provides for the improvement and betterment of the 
miserable and deplorable conditions existing in the steerages of ves¬ 
sels which carry the immigrants to our shores. By passing my bill 
you will in a great measure estop the steamship companies from 
pursuing their campaign of unlawful advertising, which in a great 
measure enlarges their business and profits and stimulates and 
increases immigration out of all proportions. As my bill provides 
for many improvements and changes actually necessary in the 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


473 


steerage, thus bringing about more humane treatment, to which 
these poor people are manifestly entitled, and, besides, it will make 
it less profitable for the “ steamship trust. 77 And for the latter 
reason the “steamship trust’ 7 will be less prone to spend huge sums 
of money for its unlawful advertisements. And another reason why 
we should pass my bill is that it provides for heavy punishment for 
any and all unlawful and untruthful advertising on the part of any 
steamship company or its agents. So by the passage of my bill we 
will protect and take ample care of all immigrants who are desirous 
of coming to this country, and who do so voluntarily and of their 
own free will and desire, whose purpose is to remain with us and 
make this country their permanent domicile. We will thereby put 
an effective stop to enforced, speculative, adventurous, and spasmodic 
immigration. And also pass mv other bill, now before the committee, 
which provides for the Bureau of Information and Distribution, and 
within a short space of time you will hear no complaints from any¬ 
where against any class of immigrants in particular and immigration 
in general. Let us pass these bills and help them along rather than 
restrict their coming. Our country is so great in area that we can 
accommodate all who desire to avail themselves of our institutions, 
and the undeveloped resources of the land are so tremendous that it 
will require many, many years of diligent labor to develop them. 
Besides, there is Canada, Mexico, Central America, and the great 
South American Republics where immigration is desired and wel¬ 
comed, and I am of the opinion that within a very short space of time 
the immigration into this country will fall off to such an extent that 
our commerce and industry will feel the effect. The reason for this is 
evident from the fact that Canada and our neighboring Republics 
are offering many inducements for immigration upon which you are 
now trying to impose so many restrictions. These countries are 
spending large sums of money annually to secure immigration, and 
it will be but a few years hence when those countries will receive the 
greater percentage of it. 

The rapid strides toward progress in Canada and the South 
American Republics, dormant for centuries, is amazing, and due only 
to new blood and immigration; and it is a truism that where new' 
fields of opportunity are opened thither the tide of immigration flows. 

The prejudice which now asserts itself against the immigrant from 
southern and southeastern Europe is identical to that which was 
prevalent in the early days of German and Irish immigration, the 
selfsame element which leaped to conclusions without familiarizing 
themselves with pertinent facts and data. The good qualities of 
these people were not known at that time. But to-day who can 
deny that the Germans or the Irish do not possess the very best 
qualifications for American citizenship ? Within the last fifty years, 
and since the beginning of Bohemian and Polish immigration, the 
Bohemians and Poles have conclusively demonstrated their worthi¬ 
ness of American hospitality. Three years ago I succeeded m over¬ 
coming the prejudice and bias which was exhibited toward Bohemian 
immigrants by showing that the Bohemian immigrant is worthy of 
our consideration in every respect. And in this I am borne out by 
statistics which prove that he stands at the helm in education, indus¬ 
triousness, and thrift. I dare say that no one can successfully con¬ 
tradict the assertion that the Germans, the Irish, the Bohemians, 


474 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


the Poles, Swedes and Norwegians, and the Danes are not desirable 
immigrants. They have all proven beyond doubt their worthiness, 
and their citizenship has given us eminent satisfaction. Every student 
of economics will show, and every honest and unprejudiced historian 
demonstrates, that Jewish immigration has greatly aided and bene¬ 
fited our country by opening and enlarging our commercial marts, 
finding new markets for our products, and in other ways has helped 
to make this country the first commercial country in the world. The 
progressiveness of the Jewish immigrant has in numerous other ways 
resulted advantageously to the entire country. 

There is the Polish immigrant, ever loyal, sincere, and industrious. 
Long before the emigration of the Pole to America has his worth and 
desirability been demonstrated, for in the days of the Revolution 
those eminent and valiant Poles, Gen. Thaddeus Kosciusko, and 
Count Casimir Pulaski, whose statues we will shortly unveil in this 
city, fought by the side of the immortal Washington for our freedom 
from the despotism and oppression of England. My only regret is 
that our Bohemian and Polish immigration is not larger. 

Mr. Chairman, careful observation and study of the inhabitants and 
conditions existing among the inhabitants of southern and south¬ 
eastern Europe will reveal conditions quite opposite to those presumed 
to exist there, and the people will surely earn your sympathy rather 
than condemnation. It goes without saying that some of these 
people are guilty of offenses, but not any more so than others. 
Humanity was never destined to be perfect, and we must allow for 
the reasonable misgivings of our fellow-beings. I desire to quote a 
few pertinent statistics in this connection: 


White prisoners of known nativity. 


Division. 

Per cent native. 

Per cent foreign 
born. 

1904. 

1890. 

1904. 

1890. 

Continental United States. 

76.3 

71.8 

23.7 

28.3 



These figures are taken from the last special report of the Census 
Bureau, and are based upon investigations which were made in 
1904, and it is evident that great care and caution has been exercised 
in compiling these figures, inasmuch as the work undertaken required 
three years’ time to complete. This report was published in 1907. 
These figures conclusively demonstrate that the percentage of foreign- 
born inmates of our reformatory and penal institutions has been con¬ 
stantly decreasing, notwithstanding that these figures were based 
upon the foreign-born population as reported in the Census of 1900. 
It must be taken into consideration that the millions of immigrants 
who have arrived in this country have not been counted in this report, 
and yet the figures show that while the foreign population has greatly 
increased, the percentage of offenders has decreased. On the other 
hand, the percentage of native prisoners has increased. And this 
report shows that the crimes of a grave nature committed by foreign- 
born prisoners is extremely small, most of the convictions being upon 













HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


475 


minor charges, usually the infraction of municipal ordinances. I 
have frequently heard certain gentlemen before this committee 
charge that the present immigration is below the standard of the 
immigration .which we have been receiving up to 1890, and that it 
fills our charitable and penal institutions. These are but bare state¬ 
ments unsupported by any facts, and are easily disproved by our own 
data on these matters. It only goes to show that they are merely 
bent upon a mighty effort to restrict immigration, and will even 
slander and libel the immigrants to accomplish their deplorable 
object. 

It is true, and therefore I admit, that a certain percentage of these 
people are to some extent illiterate, but that is not their fault. They 
are deprived of every opportunity in their native countries for mental 
advancement. We are sending our missionaries and spending millions 
of dollars to educate people in uncivilized countries who are nowhere 
as near to us in race, color, and other attainments as these new arrivals, 
and our unsolicited charity is resented. The spirit of our institutions 
are best subserved by helping those people who of their own volition 
seek to throw off the yoke of ignorance and oppression which is forced 
upon them in their native countries. 

The immigration of Slovaks, Slovenians, Croatians, Italians, and 
Lithuanians is but of recent origin. These people are helping along in 
the progress of our nation—they are producers. They are all thrifty 
and industrious, and idleness is wholly unknown to them. They are 
not beggars, and they do not subsist upon charity; they work, and 
work hard to support themselves and their loved ones. And no 
doubt within a few years they too will demonstrate to the country 
that they are unjustly classified as “undesirables.” They will prove 
their worth beyond any doubt. 

Mr. Chairman, my motive for presenting the cause of these people 
before you arises purely from the standpoint of justice and fair play. 
I am not expecting any political reward at their hands. In my district 
I have quite a large number of Slovaks, Slovenians, Croatians, and 
Lithuanians, but there is only a small percentage of them who are 
citizens; not because they are not anxious and desirous to avail 
themselves of that great privilege, but because our excessively harsh 
and strict naturalization laws preclude them from attaining those 
coveted rights. Nevertheless, they are good people. They are hard 
workers, industrious, honest, and law abiding. They live in model 
homes neatly and cleanly furnished (as is also shown by the Immigra¬ 
tion Commission report), and they make every effort to educate their 
children properly, and they are rapidly accustoming themselves to 
American ways and manners. 

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have no Italians in my dis¬ 
trict, and so what I say in behalf of Italian immigration will certainly 
not redound to my political advantage, However, I formerly pre¬ 
sided for many years as magistrate in a district in my city which is 
densely populated with these people, and by coming in close contact 
with them I have been able to learn a great deal about their habits 
and customs. I want to give testimony here that they are as a whole 
a sturdy, hard-working, honest, and industrious class of people, and 
their standard of morality is high. Why should we discriminate 
against them? I regard the publicity which these people* have 


476 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


received at the hands of the American press on account of the so- 
called “Black Hand” crimes, most unfortunate. However, I know 
that they are doing everything in their power to eliminate and wipe 
out the stigma cast upon their nationality by a few degenerates. 
They have organized societies to accomplish their purposes in this 
direction, and in every instance they have given every possible aid 
to the authorities to apprehend the “Black Handers,” and have 
offered their united cooperation so that the ends of justice would be 
subserved and the offenders properly punished. I know from per¬ 
sonal experience that they have no compassion for men of their 
nationality who bring disgrace and dishonor upon them. Therefore 
we ought to help and encourage them, and not condemn them because 
a minute portion of their countrymen commit a few wrongs. Let us 
be charitable to our unfortunate fellow-beings. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I sincerely trust that you will regard 
this problem of immigration as I do, and I indulge the hope that you 
will concur in my views and vote and legislate accordingly. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

April 21, 1910. 

Hon. William S. Bennet, a member of the committee, having 
authority, by vote of the committee, to extend his remarks on the 
question of restricting immigration, submitted a carefully prepared 
statement relative to “Emigration as a result of legal situation of the 
Jews in Russia,” which was sent to him from that country. 

(The statement follows:) 

Jews have lived in Russia from very ancient times. There are, for 
instance, traces of the presence of Jews in Crimea already in the first 
century after the birth of Jesus Christ. They lived still earlier in the 
Caucasus and in Transcaucasia. In northern Caucasia and on the 
lower banks of the Volga, in the tenth century was consolidated the 
Khosar Empire, the rulers and the upper classes of which professed 
the Jewish religion and among the inhabitants of which were many 
Jews by race. This Khosar Empire extended over the whole of 
southern Russia, from the Volga to the Dnieper and from the Black 
and Caspian seas to the river Oka. In Kieff, in the eleventh and 
twelfth centuries, a certain part of the town was inhabited by Jews. 

But in later times of Russian history, when the Moscow Empire 
sprang up, the Jews played no part in it, the Moscovite princes and 
tsars forbidding the Jews to cross their boundaries. This continued 
until the end of the eighteenth century. At the time of the first and 
second divisions of Poland, Russia became possessed of the provinces 
of White Russia, Volhynia, and Podolia. At the final fall of the 
Polish Kingdom, in 1795, Russia further gained Lithuania and Kur¬ 
land. Together with these provinces, the Russian Empire acquired 
a population of 900,000 Jews. It was then that there arose for the 
Russian Government the so-called “Jewish question.” 

What attitude did the Government assume toward the million 
new subjects delivered by fate into its hands? Apparently rather 
an unstable one. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


477 


^In the manifesto published at the annexation of White Russia in 
1772, General Governor Count ChernyshefT declared in the name of 
the Empress Catherine II, that each and every individual should be 
guaranteed freedom of religion and inviolability of property. 

It is self-understood— 

Adds the manifesto— 

that the Jews inhabiting the lands and towns annexed by the Russian Empire will 
continue to enjoy the same freedom with regard to their religion and property till 
now enjoyed by them. Her Imperial Majesty, in her great love for humanity, will 
not suffer them alone to be excluded from the mercy and future blessings of her reign, 
go long as they, professing themselves her loyal subjects, will continue to occupy 
themselves as hitherto with trade and commerce, each according to his condition. 

In 1784 the Jews of White Russia presented a petition to the 
Empress in which they complained of oppression on the part of the 
administration and begged that the Jews should be allowed equal 
rights with the rest of the population in the choice of town coun¬ 
selors and judges; also that during the settling of disputes between 
Jews and Christians in the public courts a certain number of the 
members of the tribunal should be chosen from the Jewish com¬ 
munity. In answer to this petition appeared the senatorial ukase 
(1786) which partly fulfilled the requests of the Jews. 

In this ukase is expressed the following notable decision of the 
Empress Catherine: 

Whereas the above-mentioned inhabitants of Jewish faith— 

The Jews of White Russia— 

have, by strength of former ukases been raised to an equality with others, it is impera¬ 
tive upon every occasion to observe the principle that each according to his estate 
and calling should enjoy the privileges and rights which are his, without distinction 
of religion and nationality. 

However, notwithstanding the proclamation of the governmental 
principle of Jewish equality, a law regarding those Jews inscribed as 
citizens and merchants was passed at the end of Catherine’s reign 
(1794) imposing taxes upon them to twice the amount paid by the 
Christians. 

The government of Emperor Alexander I was likewise not quite 
free from fluctuations in the Jewish question. 

At the beginning of the reign, the tendency of raising the Jews to 
Russian citizenship by measures of enlightenment prevailed. In 
1802 Alexander I summoned a committee to discuss the question of 
the amelioration of the conditions of the Jews in Russia. Two years 
later, in 1804, the fruit of the committee’s labor was sanctioned by 
the Emperor, “The act regulating Jewish rights.” 

The project of Jewish enlightenment stands first in the plan of the 
act. Jews were to be allowed an entry into the Russian educational 
establishments and encouraged to spread among them the use of 
the Russian tongue. The Jews were divided into four classes— 
agriculturists, manufacturers, artizans, merchants, and townsfolk. 
The agriculturists received considerable privileges with regard to 
taxation; but innkeeping and land jobbing were two occupations 
forbidden to the Jews, who were even forbidden to reside in the 
country. 

In the act of 1804 two provinces were added to those allotted to 
the Jews: Astrakhan and Caucasia. These provinces collectively 
were given the name of the “Jewish Pale.” 


478 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


But in the second half of the reign of Alexander I the governmental 
methods changed in character. The tendency of the government to 
assimilate the Jews with the Christian population of the Empire was 
expressed, not through the medium of education, not by efforts to 
attract the Jews to the Russian public schools, but by attempts to 
spread the Christian religion among them. In the year 1817 was 
founded the “Society of Israelite Christians/’ which had missionary 
aims, but found little success among the Jews. At the end of the 
reign, in 1825, the provinces of Astrakhan and Caucasia were again 
excluded from the number of those which formed the Jewish Pale. 
The Jews were forbidden even a temporary residence in the interior 
provinces of the Empire and also to send goods from the frontier 
custom-houses to the towns of Great Russia. Until this time Jews 
had little frequented the interiorof Russia because of want of acquaint¬ 
ance with the inhabitants, but now this slight intercourse ceased 
altogether. 

Under the Emperor Nicholas I the tendency to assimilate the Jews 
with the Christian population became more marked and was expressed 
in various manners. Nicholas I removed the complete interdiction 
on the Jews of visiting the interior provinces. Such journeys were 
now permitted, but only to certain classes of Jews: Merchants, manu¬ 
facturers, and artisans, and for a time not exceeding six weeks. In 
the “Pale” itself oertain large towns were proscribed to the Jews 
(Kiev, Nicholaev, Sevastopol). Polish Jews, like foreign Jews, were 
forbidden to cross the Russian frontier. The recruiting season hung 
like an oppressive nightmare over the heads of the Jews. They 
regarded the recruiting with terror. It tore them away from their 
surroundings and for a lifetime (the term of service being at that time 
twenty-five years) and deprived them of all possibilities of living 
according to the dictates of their religion. The Government on its 
side regarded the military service as a means of “nearing” the Jews to 
the Christian population. The Jews were urged by all possible means 
to join the Christian religion. It is since that time that they have 
been unable to attain the rank of officers while still remaining Jews. 
In order to obtain more tangible results in this direction the Jews 
were taken from their parents as children and sent to the so-called 
“Cantonist schools,” baptized, and in this manner transformed into 
Russian soldiers. The Jewish population regarded these institutions 
with horror and disgust. Children were torn from their parents by 
force or by ruse, spirited away in the dead of night; homeless Jews, 
Jews possessing no passport, were seized and taken as soldiers. 

This gloomy epoch is still retained in the memory of the Russian 
Jews. Various other laws were passed with the object of attracting 
the Jews to Christianity. Those condemned by the courts to certain 
terms of imprisonment were granted freedom on condition of their 
becoming Christians. Monetary rewards were offered to Jews for 
accepting the Christian religion. To combat the Jewish “isolation” 
punishments were inflicted upon Jews who by their dress or outward 
appearance were distinguishable from the rest of the population. 

Only in the last decade of the reign of Nicholas I the Government 
became convinced that repressive measures alone were inadequate as 
a means of solving the Jewish question, and that it was necessary to 
raise the level of their education. In 1840, at the instigation of the 
then minister of instruction, Uvaroff, elementary Jewish schools were 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


479 


established with a general course of education, and also two “rabbi 
colleges” for the preparation of educated rabbis and schoolmasters. 
But the Jewish masses, terrorized by the repression of the Government, 
regarded this enterprise also with distrust and animosity, and gov¬ 
ernmental efforts in this direction had but little success. 

A new epoch for Russian Jews commenced with the ascension of 
Alexander II to the throne. 

Alexander II ascended the throne soon after the famous Crimean 
campaign, which ended in the complete defeat of Russia and the 
fall of Sebastopol. The new Emperor turned his attention to all 
sides of Russian life, and his greatest desire was to awaken the latent 
strength of the country and to lead it forth upon the path of free devel¬ 
opment. And after the emancipation of the peasants in 1861, which 
removed the brand of slavery from the Russian Empire, Alexander 
II earnestly applied himself to judicial reforms and reform in town 
and country administration. The result of his activity were the 
“Codes of procedure” of 1864, famous in modern Russian history. 
Then it was that public trials, juries, elective justices of peace, 
town and zemstvo self-government, were established. The reign of 
Alexander II commenced a new era in Russian life, which naturally 
affected the position of the oppressed and defenseless Jews. The 
Emperor turned his attention seriously to the position of the Jews, 
and at his ascension to the throne categorically expressed his desire 
that they should be raised to the same and equal rights with the rest 
of the population. In order to realize his intentions and to break 
the confines of the “ Pale,” in which the Jewish population vegetated 
miserably, the “Tzar-Deliverer” in 1859 conferred the right of 
living in any part of Russia upon the Jewish merchants of the first 
guild, and in 1861 he extended this privilege to all Jews who had passed 
through the highest educational establishments (these last were even 
permitted to enter governmental service). In 1865 artisans received 
the right of free residence throughout the Empire for purposes of 
their trade, and at length, in 1867, retired soldiers received the same 
right. Jews were allowed to take part in town and zemstvo self- 
governing institutions. In this manner the greater part of the Jewish 
population were free to leave the “Pale” and to live in any part of 
the country on equal terms with the Christians. Under the protec¬ 
tion of these new liberating acts, a considerable number of Jews 
began to quit the “Pale,” life within which was growing more and 
more oppressive. More than that, under influence of a tolerant 
administration, which yielded to the liberal tendencies of the times, 
a large number of Jews began to leave the “Pale” without any 
legal right at all, some making toward the central towns, others 
toward the Baltic provinces. This permeation, commencing at 
first gradually and cautiously, became in course of time quite a 
natural phenomena. Restraining laws were applied with less severity 
than formerly. Toward the end of the reign of Alexander II the 
Russian population was expectantly hoping for the final establish¬ 
ment of legality in the country, and the Jews for their complete 
emancipation. 

The assassination of Alexander II put an end to these hopes. The 
Russian Government, at the accession of Alexander III, set out deter¬ 
minedly upon the path of reaction; its mediaeval institutions were 
again proclaimed to be sacred and unchangeable; and its reactionary 


480 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


measures placed the whole country, and the Jews especially, in the 
unbearable situation in which it is to-day. The new reign opened 
with an outburst of “ pogroms” upon the Jewish population, which 
preyed upon all the towns of southern Russia, and echoed here and 
there in various other parts. We will touch upon this phenomena 
peculiar to Jewish life later on, but now we will resume our short 
outline of the legislating activity of the Government. At this time 
Plehve’s influence began to be felt, and Pobiedonostzeff became 
omnipotent at court. Soon after the “pogroms” followed, on the 3d 
of May, 1882, the publication of the ill-famed “temporary laws,” 
which have been in operation since that time and which are chiefly 
responsible for that continual unemployment from which the Jewish 
population of Russia suffer so cruelly. The old restrictive laws for¬ 
bidding the Jews the buying or renting of land, even within the 
“Pale,” and the right of habitation outside the given towns and 
boroughs of the “Pale,” were again brought severely into force. 
These “temporary laws,” their severity augmented by administra¬ 
tive orders, affected some provinces to such an extent that nearly the 
whole Jewish population of the villages of those provinces were 
forced to move back to the towns within the “Pale.” Besides 
which many small villages were administratively changed into 
villages, so as the achieve the banishment of the Jews from those 
parts. 

The “temporary laws” not only ousted the Jews from agriculture 
(the principal branch of Russian industry); it hindered them even in 
their trading and artisanship, which are closely connected with 
village life. 

Not long after the appearance of the “temporary laws” in 1883, a 
high commission was rounded under the presidentship of Count 
Palen. It collected the rich materials upon the Jewish question, 
and, after a wide investigation of it, the commission, consisting exclu¬ 
sively of highly placed bureaucrats, arrived at the conclusion that 
the “system of repression and exceptional laws alone has outlived 
its time and has proved to be wrong. Therefore it is necessary to 
resort to another, opposite course.” “Measures of legislation on 
the Jews,” declared the commission, “should have but one aim— 
the extinction of any special Jewish legislation; that is to say, the 
gradual (even if slow) equalization of the rights of the Jews|with 
those of all other subjects of the Empire.” 

Thus in the first half of the reign of Alexander III representatives 
of the Russian bureaucracy, remembering the traditions of the pre¬ 
ceding reign, still expressed themselves, though timidly, for the 
emancipation of the Jews. 

However, the report of the commission was not approved by the 
emperor, and during the second half of the reign of Alexander III 
not a year passed without some new law limiting the rights of the 
Jews. Expulsions en masse of the Jews from their place of residence 
became matters of daily occurrence. In 1886 began the limitation 
of the admission of Jews into the educational establishments. In 
1887 Rostov and Taganrog were excluded from the “Jewish Pale.” 
In 1888 Finland was closed to the Jews. In 1889 the right of be¬ 
coming barristers and lawyers was restricted for the Jews. In 1890 
obstacles were placed to their participating in shareholding companies. 
By force of the law of 1891, 30,000 Jewish artisans were expelled from 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


481 


Moscow and the Moscow Province. Similar expulsions took place 
from all the interior provinces of Russia, while from the large prov¬ 
inces of Don, Kuban, and Terek every Jew without exception was 
expelled. In 1893 the Jews were forbidden to give their children 
Christian names. In the same year Yalta was excluded from the 
Jewish Pale, etc. 

We should have to fill many pages in order only to enumerate the 
many laws against the Jews issued during the second half of the reign 
of Alexander III. 

The ascension of Nicholas II did not introduce any substantial 
changes in the method of dealing with the Jews. The restraining 
legislation continued to increase, although not so rapidly, and the 
noose thrown around the Jewish people was constantly tightened. 

Let us now summarize briefly the legal situation of the Jews in Russia 
in order to show the chief causes which make their lives so unbearable 
and which so forcibly impel them to cross the ocean. All the re¬ 
strictive laws regarding the Jews may be classified into four groups: 

I. RESTRICTION IN HABITATION. 

Jews have no right to live freely in all parts of the Empire, but only 
in the small part of it which constitutes the Jewish Pale. The 
Pale embraces 15 provinces: White Russia, Lithuania, Ukraina, and 
Novoressia, i. e., the provinces of Vilna, Kovno, Grodno, Minsk, 
Moghilief, Vitebsk, Volhynia, Podolia, Kiev, Chernigov, Poltava, 
Bessarabia, Kherson, Ekaterinoslav, Crimea, and the 10 provinces of 
Poland. 

Outside these provinces only some privileged groups of Jews have 
the right to live, notably, merchants of the first guild, i. e., the big¬ 
gest traders and manufacturers; Jews who have graduated in the 
highest educational establishments; artisans; persons who have ac¬ 
complished the military service according to the old recruiting laws 
and their (the soldier’s) descendants. However, all parts outside 
the Pale are not free to these privileged persons. For instance, 
Siberia is almost entirely closed to the Jews. A Jew condemned by 
the law courts to deportation to Siberia is forbidden to remain there 
after the expiration of his term, so that habitation in Siberia for a 
Jew may be only acquired by committing a serious crime. The most 
numerous group of privileged Jews, the artisans, are forbidden to- 
settle, not only in Siberia, but also in the Moscow provinces and in 
the Cossack provinces. And where the Jewish artisan still preserves 
the right to settle according to law this right is hedged in by so many 
formalities that a Jewish artisan outside the Pale lives in complete 
dependence upon the police, which costs him so much in the way of 
bribes that few artisans avail themselves of their right. Thanks to 
these difficulties, in spite of the comparatively favorable condition of 
things for tradesmen and artisans outside the ‘‘Pale,” there are living- 
now only 6 per cent of the Jewish population in other parts of Russia,, 
and of these about half are aborigines, like the Jews of the Baltic 
provinces, Caucasia, and Central Asia. Although the confinement to 
the Pale is irksome to the Jews, it embraces a considerable territory 
and the Jews would be able to find more or less sufficient place within 
it. But even on that territory only an extremely small part is 
really accessible to the Jews. Thanks to the Temporary laws for¬ 
bidding them to live in the villages, 3,000,000 of the Jewish population 

49090—10- 31 


482 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


living within the 15 provinces of the Pale are inclosed within a 
few hundred larger and smaller towns which are not prominent either 
for commerce or industry. Kiev, the most important industrial and 
commercial center of southwestern Russia, is closed to the Jews, as 
also the largest health resort, Yalta. Restrictive laws are at work 
in the two most important ports of the Black Sea, Sebastopol and 
Nicholaev. Thus the Jews are cut off not only from agriculture, but 
also in a large degree from the other industries, as the larger industrial 
establishments, for instance, all sugar mills, mines, smelting, and 
metal works, and glass works, are situated outside the towns. 

II. RESTRICTIONS IN OCCUPATION. 

The most important fact here is that the Jews are entirely cut off 
from agriculture, the staple industry of three-fourths of the popula¬ 
tion of Russia. This is brought about not only by the interdiction 
upon Jews of settling outside the towns, but also by their being for¬ 
bidden to buy or rent lands anywhere except in the towns. (In 
Poland, however, this restriction applies only to lands belonging to 
the p easants.) 

All professions connected in some way with the State are closed to 
the Jews. The transfer of railways to the State during the last reign 
has brought with it loss of occupation for a host of Jewish railway 
employees, from engineers to navvies. By the establishment of spirit 
state monopoly about 100,000 Jews have lost their earnings. All the 
branches of state service are completely closed against the Jews, and 
in the domain of the so-called “free professions” heavy restrictions 
weigh upon them, so, for instance, pedagogical activity is almost inac¬ 
cessible to the Jews. The legal profession is also very restricted. 

III. RESTRICTIONS IN EDUCATION. 

Russia is far from rich in means of education. The two and a half 
million rubles of the Russian budget is spent upon paying the inter¬ 
est upon loans, on armaments, upon new railways, on exceptionally 
expensive police, and administration, only a small fraction remaining 
for the educational needs of the people; besides which the Government 
until lately has looked upon public enlightenment mistrustfully. 
The limitations placed upon their education have been one of the heav¬ 
iest blows aimed at the Jewish population. The Jews, comprising 
nearly half of the town populations within the pale, are filled with a 
great longing for enlightenment. The limitation of the number of 
Jewish pupils in governmental schools to 10 per cent, together with 
the small number of educational institutions, is practically a barrier 
between the great mass of Jewish youth and the enlightenment so 
ardently desired by them. The percentage of Jewish students in the 
higher educational establishments is made still smaller. The fixed 
percentage was removed in 1906 under, the pressure of the revolution¬ 
ary movement; but the victory of reaction has again brought it into 
force. Not content with forbidding the governmental schools to the 
Jews, the Government until last year placed every obstacle in the way 
of their opening private schools of their own, and, considering the cul¬ 
tivation of the Jewish masses to be dangerous to itself, has forbidden 
the teaching of the Russian language in the Jewish religious schools 
(Heder), imposing fines upon teachers who infringe that regulation. 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


483 


IV. ISOLATION FROM LOCAL SELF-GOVERNING BODIES. 

In 1892 reforms were made in the local self-governing institutions, 
in the sense that the democratic element within them was weakened 
and administrative tutelage increased. The Jews were entirely shut 
out from zemstvo corporations. In town corporations Jewish repre¬ 
sentation was limited to 10 per cent, and this not elected by the 
population, but appointed by the administration. So that, even in 
towns of which Jews form the majority of the population, they are 
almost entirely deprived of any influence over the affairs of the town. 

The above-enumerated restrictions placed upon the Jews in Russia 
are sufficient to demonstrate the distress of the Jewish population. 
Huddled within the towns of the pale, which, with the exception of 
Poland, presents absolutely no field favorable for economic progress, 
the Jews are forced to seek a miserable livelihood in small trading and 
artisanship, and even in this they are hampered, because without 
freedom of movement no regular trade and sale of goods is possible. 
By these means an amazing situation is obtained, a hundred thousand 
Jewish traders and artisans, ruined by mutual competition, are starv¬ 
ing unemployed, while at the same time in the villages and the towns 
outside the Jewish pale trade is at a standstill for want of organization 
and sufficient artisans can not be found. Unemployment among the 
Jews exists, not because there is no work for them to do, but because 
they are forbidden to work in places where work is waiting to be done. 

But the restrictive legislation against the Jews does not mean only 
the limitation of their rights. Thanks to the peculiar political 
construction of Russia, the administrative powers are exceptionally 
strong and they are very far from always adhering strictly to the 
paths of legality. The more a certain part of a population is without 
rights, the more it feels the burden of an oppressive administration. 
The extraordinary voluminousness, intricacy, and complication of the 
legislation upon Jews gives a possibility of interpreting it in very 
various manners, which makes the position of the Jews still more pre¬ 
carious and unstable. For each of their rights, however lawful, the 
Jews are obliged to bribe the police. A Jew authorized to five in the 
country by virtue of having taken up his abode there before the law 
of 1882 is nevertheless obliged to pay for the right, or he is liable at 
any moment to be banished from the place. Even if, by appealing 
to the Senate, he succeeds in a year or so to establish his right of 
residence in such a spot, he can not repair the damage caused to 
himself, his home and property by his former expulsion. 

As a Russian writer has recently expressed it, “Each restrictive 
measure passed against the Jews is a living source of bribes for the 
Russian policeman,” a fact which causes the local administrators 
to stand firmly for such legislation and upon every occasion to assure 
the Central Government of its necessity. The way in which the arbi¬ 
trary measures of the Government are applied is exasperating in 
itself. It is enough to call to mind the famous Kiev “beats” 
(oblavy). “Oblavy ” means in Russian a certain form of the hunt in 
which the hunters close in on all sides upon their prey to slaughter it. 
This term is very applicable to the method of seizing the “illegally 
domiciled” Jews in Kiev. In the dead of night the police surround 
the vicinity in which the Jews are supposed to be living, burst into 
the houses, sparing neither the peace of mind of inoffensive people 


484 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILES. 


nor the shame of women. All those living illegally are dragged to 
the prisons and afterwards sent under convoy, together with crim¬ 
inals, from prison to prison until they finally reach the place of their 
“legal” habitation. Needless to say that the visits of Jews to Kiev, 
a town situated in the very middle of the Pale and connected with 
innumerable branches of economic activity, are absolutely inevitable. 

While placing the Jews in such humiliating conditions, deprived 
of every right, the Russian Government nevertheless deems it just 
that they should be made to fulfill all the obligations of citizenship, 
even to a greater extent than the Christian population. The Jews 
are required to provide more soldiers comparatively than the 
Christians, and when they, because of emigration, are unable to pro¬ 
vide a sufficient number of healthy recruits, they are made to pay 
heavily in proportion to the lack and accused of evading the-recruit- 
ing laws. 

But however difficult the legal position of the Jews in Russia, and 
however heavily the tyranny of the Government may oppress them, 
these things are not yet the crowning tragedy of their lives to-day. 

The most terrible feature of the lives of the Russian Jews is the 
“ pogrom.” Protection of life and property are two things which 
even the rulers of barbarous countries feel called upon to guarantee 
their subjects. But this protection is not accorded to the Jews in 
Russia at the present time. The first extensive “ pogrom ” took place 
soon after Emperor Alexander III mounted the throne. The 
minister of the interior was at that time Count Ignatieff and the 
director of the department of police the famous von Plehve. At 
that time already the “pogroms” were remarkable for certain peculiar 
features. The last had taken place not in small out-of-the-way 
places in which the Government had no armed force at command, 
but in large towns, filled with soldiers. The Government, which in 
every case of “pogrom” had displayed a remarkable indifference, in 
many cases clearly permitted them. During many of the “pogroms, ” 
especially those of the cruellest nature, disinterested witnesses declared 
that the soldiers called to the spot not only failed to disperse the 
“pogrommists,” but even served them as a kind of escort. While 
the government press tried to explain the “pogroms” as the result 
of the instinctive hatred of the populace towards the Jews, several 
of the “ pogrommists ” themselves declared in a court of law that 
they bore no hatred whatever toward the Jews, but took part in the 
“pogrom” because some persons unknown had assured them that 
“the Tzar had ordered the Jews to be beaten and that no punish¬ 
ment would follow.” It was very strange that as soon as Count 
Ignatieff relinquished the ministry of the interior to Count D. 
Tolstoy, and a circular was issued that the local governors would be 
answerable to the central powers for allowing disorders, the “pogroms” 
ceased of themselves, without the slightest effort of administration. 
In view of the public depression which reigned in the country after 
the victory of reaction, the secret of the “pogroms” of the eighties 
remained but little investigated. 

More than two decades passed. 

The minister of the interior was then Von Plehve, the former 
director of police under Ignatieff in 1881. The Government was 
engaged upon a struggle with the revolutionary movement now 
grown to be a considerable force and much more dangerous to the 
autocratic regime. Then suddenly, unexpectedly, the Kishenef 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


485 


“pogrom” fell like a scourge upon the Jewish population. It differed 
essentially from the pogroms of the eighties: these latter had been 
chiefly confined to attacks upon property, but here, side by side with 
these, attacks upon the persons of Jews took place. Numerous 
mutilated corpses, hundreds of persons crippled, and women out¬ 
raged, such horrors that had not occurred since long within the 
boundaries of Europe. And this time it was palpable that the police and 
gendarmes not only patronized but also participated in the pogrom. 

The longer the struggle between the Government and the revolu¬ 
tionary movement continued, the more frequent were the pogroms. 
Their deep. significance became apparent. In the eighties the town 
populations were perhaps easily incited to plunder, but during the 
last few years some degree of culture and consciousness has been 
spread among them. Participation in “pogroms” has become less 
attractive to them, and not seldom have occasions occurred when 
the more conscientious elements of the Christian population have 
endeavored to protect the Jews. In order to incite a pogrom it has 
become necessary to spread a wide Chauvinistic agitation, to give 
rise to rumors that the Jews have killed Christian children, that they 
wish to overthrow the church, etc. On the other side, the Jews, 
despairing of the protection of the authorities, have begun to act in 
defense of their own lives, property, and honor. There has appeared 
a danger of the “pogrommists” being overpowered by the Jews, so 
that troops are summoned to the “pogroms,” not to use their arms 
against the “pogrommists,” but against the Jewish self-defenders. 
At a given signal in October of 1905, pogroms began over nearly 
the whole of Russia. They were each conducted upon a certain plan, 
of one and the same pattern. Bands of “pogrommists” carrying 
flags with troops before and behind them, moved through the streets, 
laying waste to Jewish property and murdering Jews. The attempts 
of the Jews at self-defense brought upon them volleys of rifles and 
even of cannons (in Kishenef). The evident organizers of the 
“pogroms,” in the ranks of the administration were not made answer- 
able for them, but even received rewards and promotions (the 
commander of the Bielostock garrison, Colonel Schreiter; Colonel 
Tikhanovsky, in Siedletz, etc.). Those who were brought to trial 
were generally members of the mob, who had but played the role of 
blind tools in the hands of the provocators. These were usually con¬ 
demned to some slight punishment, but for the most part were 
liberated by imperial order through the intercession of the Union of 
Russian Men (in Ovidiopol, Kertch, Tula, etc.). The role of the 
bureaucrats was in this way revealed, and when the former minister 
of the interior, Prince Urussoff, in his famous speech in the first 
Douma acknowledged that he had discovered the existence of a special 
secret office in the department of police for the manufacture of 
proclamations inciting the population to “pogroms” and from 
whence instructors in the art of the “pogrom” were sent out, he 
openly confirmed before the whole world that which had been sus¬ 
pected long before; and the then minister of the interior, M. Stolypme, 
could only promise that this shocking state of things should cease to 
exist. Nevertheless, after that occurred the “pogrom” m Siedletz. 

In order to show in figures the extent of the “pogroms,” let us 
mention that from the 17th of October, 1905, till the end of 1906, 
661 towns and cities were devastated, that 38,000 families, or 162,000 
persons suffered. General loss during the last “pogroms” amounted 


486 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


to 54,153,853 roubles, 985 persons were killed, 1,492 wounded heavily, 
while the number of those wounded iin a lesser degree amounted to 
many thousands, 387 women were widowed, 177 children completely 
orphaned, while 1,474 were deprived of one of their parents. 

But one can not estimate the damage done by the pogroms in mere 
figures. Completely destroying the safety of property, the “pogrom” 
ruins credit, brings about an economic crisis, and throws tens of thou¬ 
sands unemployed workmen into the streets. Still more terrible is 
the effect or the “pogroms” upon the moral atmosphere prevailing 
among the Jews. The knowledge that in the full light of day in the 
sight of everybody, a crowd of the lowest rabble may burst into your 
house, plundering and murdering, destroying all that you have toiled 
for, may violate the honor of those who are dearer than life itself, 
may maim or kill you, while those who are set to preserve your secu¬ 
rity will at best remain passive spectators of these events, and at worst 
may take active part in them—the knowledge that it is useless to 
struggle, because behind the “ pogrommists ” armed force is ranged 
against you—such knowledge paralyzes the energy of people, causes 
them to fly without retrospection, without calculation, only to escape 
from the threatening horrors of the “pogrom.” And in such condi¬ 
tions the Jewish population have existed for many years. In some 
towns, such as Odessa, the “pogrom” is no extraordinary occurrence, 
but a chronic phenomena holding the Jews in perpetual state of panic. 

We have said enough to illustrate the principal reasons of Jewish 
emigration from Russia. The Jews emigrate to various countries, but 
principally to the United States. The emigration statistics of the 
United States give us the exact figures upon the subject. 

Though before 1889 we have only the figures of the total emigration 
(including non-Jewish) from Russia to the United States, those figures 
fluctuate according to the difference in the position of the Jews in Russia. 

In 1880-81 (from July 1 to January 30), notwithstanding the 
immense number of emigrants which had already passed from 
Europe to the United States, only 10,500 emigrants came from Rus¬ 
sia. In the following year, 1881-82, the year of “pogroms” and the 
ministry of Count Ignatieff, the number of emigrants from Russia rose 
to 21,500. But in the following year, 1882-83, when pogroms were 
forbidden, because of a change of ministry, the number of Russian 
emigrants suddenly fell to 11,920. However, under the influence of 
the temporary laws, issued on the 3d of May, 1882, forbidding the 
Jews to reside in the towns and villages outside the “Pale” and the 
cultivation of land, the emigration from Russia began to grow. 
Already in 1883-84 the number of emigrants from Russia had reached 
17,000, and grew in proportion with the increase of restrictive legis¬ 
lation. In 1886-87 the number of emigrants from Russia had reached 
already 31,000. The year 1891-92 was one of the most oppressive for 
the Jews. Many thousand families were by administrative order ex¬ 
iled from villages and country estates of the southwestern part of 
Russia. Thirty thousand Jews were banished from Moscow and the 
Moscow Province, and the same expulsions took place in all the inte¬ 
rior governments. In this year, 1891-92, the Jewish emigration 
reached the second considerable maximum of 91,000 persons. Since 
then emigration has been on the decrease, reaching, m 1896-97, the 
minimum of 25,816 persons. This was the time when the political 
tactics of the new Emperor, Nicholas II, had not become sufficiently 
definite, and the Jewish population was hoping for a better future in 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


487 


Russia. In the following year statistics of the United States give us 
not only facts about emigration from Russia in general, but immediate 
figures of Jewish emigration. These figures, as we shall see, are illus¬ 
trative of the wreck of Jewish hopes in Russia. 



Number of 
Jews emi¬ 
grating from 
Russia. 

Year of emigration: 

1898-99. 

24,276 

37,011 

37,660 

37,846 

47,689 

77,554 

92,388 

125,284 

1899-1900. 

1900-1901. 

1901-2. 

1902-3. 

1903-4. 

1904-5. 

1905-6. 



The hopes placed by the Russian Jews in the reign of Nicholas II, 
have not been realized. The restrictive legislation has not grown 
milder, but even more severe, and the emigration has increased. In 
1903-4, it increased with unprecedented rapidity. The reason i$ 
known and it is a political one exclusively. In April, 1903, took 
place the Kishenef pogrom; the Jews were seized with a panic and 
realized more strongly, perhaps, than they had ever done before, that 
they lacked even the elementary conditions of personal security. In 
the beginning of 1904 the war broke out and in the beginning of 1905 
the revolutionary movement. The war and the revolution together 
disorganized the economic life of Russia, and the Jews as an industrial 
and commercial people felt the influence of these events the most 
keenly. The number of emigrations increased, especially from the 
most commercial parts of Russia, Poland, from whence until then, but 
a small number of Jews had emigrated. At length the pogroms of 
1905 and the subsequent events transformed the Jewish emigration 
from Russia into a regular political stampede. 

And so we will conclude. The emigration of Jews from Russia is 
not the outcome of some deep economical phenomena. Russia is a 
comparatively sparsely populated country, and the demand for the 
skilled labor and artisanship which is now being transferred to the 
United States is especially great. So that the Jews are emigrating 
not because it is impossible for them to find sufficient earnings in 
Russia, but because the Government deprives them of these earnings; 
and more than that, deprives them of the most elementary conditions 
of security of life and property. Thus we can foretell the future of 
Jewish emigration. It is entwined with the political conditions of 
Russia. Let but the “pogroms” cease and the emigration of the 
Jews will immediately and considerably diminish and will resume 
those insignificant proportions which it displayed until the “pogrom” 
of Kishenef. 

(Mr. Bennet also submitted the following letters relative to the 
collection of the head tax on arriving aliens. The letters are self- 


explanatory, and follow:) 


New York, February 21, 1910 . 


Hon. William S. Bennet, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Mr. Bennet: Please pardon the apparent delay in acknowledging the 
receipt of your letter of the 17 th instant. I have been absent from the city for some 
time, and your letter just reached me this morning. 














488 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


In your letter you say: “The charge is made before our Committee on Immigration 
of the House that by administrative order the amount of head tax which could have 
been collected was lessened.” This is positively the first time that I have heard 
that any such order was in existence. It certainly was never called to my attention, 
and I can positively say that in the part I had in the administration of the Depart¬ 
ment of Commerce and Labor, covering a period of about seven months, the law as it 
reads in the statutes was strictly construed. 

I am aware of no failure to collect the head tax, nor am T aware of any regulation 
adopted for the purpose of either increasing or decreasing the amount of head tax, 
nor am I aware of any change in the administration of the law which would make 
it easier for persons to be admitted into the country who would not be plainly entitled 
to admission under the law. 

Yours, sincerely, Ormsby McHarg. 


The Immigration Commission, 

Washington, D. C., February 14, 1910. 

Hon. William S. Bennet, M. C., 

House of Representatives, City. 

My Dear Mr. Bennet: Responsive to your oral inquiry I beg to state that during 
my term of office as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Labor no administrative 
order having the effect of waiving head tax on immigrants was issued. Neither do I 
know of any instance before or since my term of office where any order was issued 
effecting such waiver. The law, as you know, is explicit in regard to the collection 
of the head tax and no authority is vested in the administrating officer by which such 
waiver can legally be made. 

Very sincerely, yours, Wm. R. Wheeler. 


, Regia Ambasciata D’Italia, 

Washington, D. C., February 9, 1910. 

My Dear Mr. Bennet: In reply to your note of the 3d instant, I beg to herewith 
transmit to you, in English translation, copy of the decree issued by the royal commis¬ 
sioner-general of immigration upon the 31st of May, 1907, after the head tax had been 
raised from $2 to $4. 

I may add that if the increase amounted to 12 lire instead of 10, as it should have 
been, it was because the companies called attention to the fact that, whilst the head 
tax is paid by the head (adult or child), the rates are in proportion with the age 
(whole berth, half a berth, a fourth of a berth, etc.). 

Believe me, my dear Mr. Bennet, yours, very truly, 

E. Mayor des Planches. 

Hon. W. S. Bennet, 

Member of Congress, Washington. 


Decree of the department of emigration changing the maximum rates for the transportation 
of emigrants to the United States, established for the last four months of 1907. 

Upon the requests made by emigrant carriers that changes be made in the rates for 
the lines to the United States; 

Considering that from the 1st of July next the head tax for emigrants entering the 
United States will be increased from $2 to $4 per person; 

Considering the opportunity of increasing the rates in such measure as will not 
cause the emigrant carriers to suffer owing to the increased head tax; 

Upon the favorable opinion of the general director of the mercantile marine, decrees 
that the maximum rates for the second four months 1907 for the lines to the United 
States be increased to 12 lire for full passage, and only for emigrants who will actually 
land in the United States, starting from the 1st of July, 1907. 

The above decree will be published in the Official Gazette of the Kingdom. 

Rome, May 31, 1907. 

L. Reynaudi, 

The Commissioner-General. 




HEARINGS ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


The Committee on Immigration 

and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 

Saturday, May 21, 1910. 

The committee this day met, Hon. Benjamin F. Howell (chairman) 
presiding. 

Others present were: Representatives Burnett, Edwards, Johnson, 
and Sabath. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, gentlemen'. 

Mr. Weitzel. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
have the honor of presenting to you to-day the Rev. M. D. Lichliter, of 
Pennsylvania, the chaplain of the Junior Order United American 
Mechanics, who will address you in a general way on the subject of 
immigration, which this order had declared to be one of its principles. 

I have now the honor and pleasure of introducing Reverend 
Lichliter. 

STATEMENT OF REV. M. D. LICHLITER, HARRISBURG, PA. 

Reverend Lichliter. I will present the statement of our order in 
a general way, and I will be obliged for the courtesy of being permitted 
to present it without any cross-questioning so as to preserve its 
continuity. As the gentleman, Mr. Weitzel, the national vice-coun¬ 
cilor, has a statement to make and your time is precious, I ask that 
as a courtesy. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, at the request of the 
national legislative committee, all present here to-day and com¬ 
posed of Mr. E. C. Lafean, Mr. Reinhard Schwald, and Mr. John H. 
Noyes, and Mr. John J. Weitzel, representing the national board of 
officers, I appear before you to represent the Junior Order United 
American Mechanics. As an organization we are" nonsec-tarian and 
nonpartisan, founded upon patriotism, love of country being the chief 
cornerstone. As with all associations of a fraternal character, we 
are mutually helpful to each other, our wives and children. We 
stand prominently for the public school system of America and 
oppose sectarian interference therewith. 

The question of restricted immigration has been increasingly before 
our order for twenty years; in fact we were among the first to call 
the attention of the American Congress to the evils growing out of the 
“open-door” policy of the Government, resulting particularly from 
its recent changed "character and by which the “undesirables” from 
foreign countries have been entering our portals by the millions. 

I wish to state, by way of preface, that as an organization, the 
Junior Order United American Mechanics is not opposed to the 
immigration idea. We believe in immigration—that there has been a 


489 



490 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


od that “He has augmented our free 


need for it, that there is still room for more—but only of the better 
sort. Tracing ourselves back from three to five generations, we all 
find ourselves absorbed, through our progenitors, in the peoples of the 
old world. These progenitors were moved by a common impulse and 
hope. The Constitution formed in the cabin of the Mayflower began, 
‘‘In the name of God, amen. For the glory of God and the mainte¬ 
nance of the Christian faith.” These words became the watchwords 
of the world’s millions of men and women from other lands who 
voluntarily sought in the New World a home and freedom from 
oppression. 

We needed them—our mighty domain then called for them to 
build our cities, run our industries, construct our railroads, and till 
our soil; but that public domain is now gone. No wonder Abraham 
Lincoln, in his Thanksgiving proclamation of 1864 called upon the 

people of the land to thank Gc. 

population by immigration.” 

But, as Lord Beaconsfield once said, in defending a change of 
national policy of England, “A good many things have happened 
since then.” Every phase of the immigration problem has changed 
since the days of Lincoln, just as it has with regard to our forestry 
and conservation policy. The immigration of the present is not the 
immigration of forty years ago. The problem confronting us in this 
the opening of the second decade of the twentieth century is entirely 
different than at that time, because we are receiving, in the main, a 
different type of immigrant. We have rightly excluded the coolie. 
While with open arms our order welcomes our kith and kin and blood 
as that of forty years ago, we do protest against the admission of 
those who come into this country whose habits and manner of life 
tear down the standard of American life, of living, and of wages, and 
whose traits of character, formed under the condition under which 
they have existed as races for centuries, possessing a low order of 
intelligence and an inferior standard of life, renders it impossible, even 
if they had the desire, to maintain the highest ideals of American 
morality and citizenship. 

In studying the early immigration to this country we learn that it 
was mostly composed of people of the Celtic and Teutonic blood. 
They came from that people who made the present civilization of 
the world and aided in building up the splendid national structure of 
the United States of America. These early immigrants came of their 
own initiative to better their condition, to free themselves from the 
Old World oppression, to find a home, and at once they became a 
part of this great country, settling in the rural districts, and were on 
the firing line and in the trenches when their presence was needed. 
They were the better part of the nations from which they came— 
morally, mentally, and physically; in the main they were intelligent, 
industrious, frugal, law respecting, and liberty loving, and as such 
assimilated with the native born with marvelous facility. They con¬ 
tributed to our statesmanship, to our literature, to our commerce, 
to our agriculture, and to all other avenues of industry. They be¬ 
longed to that independent race of men of the Aryan blood who, 
when they left their homes in the Caucasus Mountains, came with 
the idea already embedded in their hearts and minds of the beauties 
of self-government. That ancient people were not governed by a 
monarchal form of government, as the present influx is. When a 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


491 


chief died, his son did not succeed him, but instead the candidates 
for the office of chief laid their shields upon the ground and the war¬ 
riors, as electors, threw their swords into the shield of the man whom 
they wanted as ruler, and the one who had the greatest number of 
swords on his shield was declared the ruler or chief. This principle 
the Aryans brought from their mountain fastnesses. It was the 
same principle that worked in the blood of the American patriot 
when he stood in the trenches of Bunker Hill and suffered at Valley 
Forge. It was from this Aryan blood that immigration came pre¬ 
vious to 1875. They did not come because they were assisted by 
others, they did not come because some one paid their passage to 
get them out of the old country, but they came because they wanted 
to be free. They came to get rid of the oppression of their old home. 
They came not at the behest of the agents of the steamship lines or 
the agent of the large American industries, sent over to buy labor 
as by auction, in the market, to drive out American labor from our 
great mills. No; they came at their own behest, and did not all 
settle down in the centers of American life to congest it, but struck 
out into the prairies and forest to build homes for themselves and 
families. 

It is very interesting to study the comparison of the immigration 
that came three or four decades ago with the present influx of aliens. 
In 1820, from which date we have computation of the arrival of aliens, 
8,385 souls came. In 1905, 1,026,499 landed on our shores, having 
passed through our wide-open gates. During this time and up to 
June 30, 1909, 26,856,723 have entered our portals. Up to 1877 the 
majority came from northern Europe and was of the Anglo-Saxon 
blood, mixed with the Celtic and Teutonic, which originally came 
from the Aryan race. 

Let us notice by way of contrast the immigration of 1854 and 1905— 
fifty years of comparison. In 1854, 48,901 English, 4,605 Scotch, 
101,606 Irish, 13,317 French, 215,000 Germans, and 3,531 Norwegians 
emigrated to America. During the same year 1,363 came from Italy 
and only 14 came from the vast Empire of Russia. Fifty years after 
England sent over only 26,218 souls; 6,153 came from Scotland, 
35,000 from Ireland, and 40,000 from Germany, while on the other 
hand Russia dumped on our shores 136,093 souls and Italy sent over 
230,622 more. In 1905 Austria-Hungary furnished 206,000 persons. 
In 1854 not a single soul came from that country. Though late in 
starting to emigrate to America, from these three great European 
countries more than 6,000,000 have entered our portals. 

WE CAN NOT ASSIMILATE THIS NEW ENORMOUS INFLUX. 

The baleful influence of such a low type of immigration on our civili¬ 
zation, labor, morals, and citizenship is patent to every observer. 
How much of this emigration in later years is undesirable is difficult 
to compute. Those who have made it a study differ in their estimates. 
But enough is shown, even by conservative estimates, that a large 
percentage of them should not have been permitted to enter. 

A few years ago a member of the Immigration Commission, who 
studied the question carefully, stated that from 1890 to 1902 of the 
5,000,000 immigrants that had entered our portals 4,000,000 of them 
should not have been permitted to enter. That estimate may be 


492 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


too large. But if the statements of other immigrant inspectors and 
the records of the commissioner-general are correct, at least one-half 
are undesirable. The latest account I have is from a gentleman in 
New York, who studied the problem the past year, who stated that 
at least 225,000 that entered our gates were not desirable. 

Taking the immigration for a year as a whole, a large per cent can 
not read nor write, thus filling this country with a vast army of 
illiterates. In 1907, according to the Annual Report of the Com¬ 
missioner-General, 751,786 came to our country, of which 191,141 
could neither read nor write. It has been computed that if the 
illiterates had been denied admission to this country—that is, those 
who could neither read nor write—from 1896 to 1907, 1,829,320 
would have been denied admission. Add to this the great number 
of those who were undesirable because of their habits, customs, and 
criminal tendencies, what a vast host would have been excluded 
from our shores. To prevent the coming of this great army of 
illiterates and undesirables, we ask of you, gentlemen, a favorable 
consideration of the Hayes bill and Elvins bill now before you. 

It is not what a man eats that makes him big and strong, but 
what his system assimilates. The boy thinks that the more he 
eats the sooner he will be a man; that the more potatoes, cabbage, 
etc., he takes down into his stomach the quicker he will arrive at 
the coveted period of maturity. That is a mistake. It is not so 
much what he eats, but what he assimilates; what his digestive 
apparatus will generate through his body that gives vigor to the 
blood and strength to the bones. The same principle is true in the 
body politic. It is not so much the number of immigrants this country 
receives that affects us, but the kind. This country has wonderful 
assimilating powers and can assimilate and distribute through its 
body politic a great army of worthy and industrious people and those 
of the high moral type. But it can not assimilate the mass of lower 
Europe and protect its high standard of morality and good order. 

The tendency of later-day immigration is to go into the great 
centers, already congested, and add thereto an increasing danger 
to the peace and good order of the public domain. It is not neces¬ 
sary, before so intelligent a body of men, to give extended remarks 
on this phase of the problem, as you know that the vast number 
of immigrants settle in our cities and refuse to go out on the farms. 

I am perfectly familiar with the fact of the inability to get immi¬ 
grants to go to the country, as I am connected with the department 
of agriculture of my own State, Pennsylvania, and have been in 
touch with a society in New York which has for its purpose the send¬ 
ing of or inducing immigrants to go to the farms in the country. 
They refuse to go, and when they do and their expenses are paid 
they soon tire of the work and leave the farmer in a few days, out of 
his money and a farm hand. Many who come from Italy were reared 
on farms, but farming is too slow for them when they arrive here; 
they prefer the centers of population and any other avenue of occu¬ 
pation rather than work on the farm. 

It is clear to every observant citizen, it seems to me, when we take 
into consideration the vast hordes of undesirable aliens, approximat¬ 
ing a million a year, that are coming to us, that something will hap¬ 
pen; in fact, something has happened. The moral fiber of°the nation 
has been weakened and its very life-blood vitiated bv the influx of 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


493 


this tide of oriental scum. The Boston of to-day is not the Boston of 
1775, when James Otis and Samuel Adams were the exponents of 
liberty. Local self-government has broken down, and Boston is now 
governed by two commissioners appointed by the governor. The 
New ^ork of to-day is not the New York when Washington landed 
from the ferry to take hold of the helm of the new Republic and guide 
safely through the breakers the first experiment of constitutional 
government on the globe. In fact, as is well known, none of our 
larger cities of to-day are the cities of forty years ago. The illiterate, 
the unclean, morally and physically, the un-American, the criminally 
inclined, yea, the lower classes of aliens form the dangerous portion 
of our municipalities, and are becoming a menace to our institutions. 

The gravitation of undesirable immigrants into these Jarge cities 
reenforces, their slum population. These slum, sections furnish the 
bulk of criminals before our police courts and the criminal tribunals. 
They are the hot beds of vice and seething pots of corruption. It is 
particularly the illiterate that is such a fertile field for the irresponsible 
agitator and corrupt boss. One who gave the matter investigation a 
few years ago stated that in Baltimore 77 per cent of the slum popula- 
tion was of foreign birth or parentage: in Chicago, 90 per cent; in 
Philadelphia, 91 per cent, and in New York, 95 per cent. It will be 
seen that the nationalities which constitute the larger per cent of the 
slum element in these and other cities are those drawn from the least 
desirable immigrant; two-thirds at least of it being contributed from 
eastern and southern Europe, and of this element the same sections 
of Europe furnish the larger number of illiterates, about 60 per cent, 
while all other countries—Scandinavia, Great Britain, France, Ger¬ 
many, and Ireland furnish but 23 per cent of the illiterates of these 
slums, and native-born Americans contribute 7 per cent. When we 
consider this illiterate accession to the slums of the cities, we should 
recall the warning of that eminent writer and traveler, George William 
Curtis, “Let us beware how we water our lifeblood.” That is, let 
us not unduly tax our assimilating powers. New York alone has a 
population at the present time of more than 500,000 Italians. 

Visit the parks and groves near our municipalities in the summer 
time on the Sabbath and observe the desecrations of the Lord’s day, 
and you will find that 97 per cent are foreigners. Take the state¬ 
ments of the officers of our police stations and judges of our courts, 
and we find that about 75 per cent tried for crimes are foreigners. 
The admissions to our almshouses and penal institutions has been 
on the increase since 1900. The most notorious criminals of the 
old countries find their way here, and soon are engaged in their red- 
handed deeds of wrongdoing. In some nations they even give a 
notorious criminal the option of going to prison or America, and he 
emigrates at once. Some countries find it cheaper and better to 
encourage such emigration and thus are getting rid of their danger¬ 
ous element. The increase of pauperism in this country from aliens 
is a matter of importance to be considered. The reports of the 
Commissioner-General of Immigration show a constant increase. 
One of these reports show in one year that 28 per cent of the number 
in our public institutions were foreigners, and that the gain in admis¬ 
sions for that year was 34 per cent. 

Then there is another factor that enters into the problem, when 
we consider the segration of these millions of undesirables, the lower 


494 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


order of immigrants into our great industrial centers—that of the 
menace to the peace and good order of our country in times of strikes 
or labor uprisings, when there is a dispute regarding the wages of 
the employees of the vast corporations. We need but recall the rail¬ 
road riots of 1877 and the Homestead strike some years later. 

My work was in the midst of those great disturbances, and I wit¬ 
nessed the destruction of the property of the railroad and city of 
Pittsburg in the disturbance of 1877, and the riotous scenes at Home¬ 
stead. The wild scenes of carnage that occurred in 1877 was not 
brought about by the railroad employees, but by the slum element of 
the city, who seized the opportunity to burn and pillage, thereby 
entailing millions of damage which the taxpayers were compelled to 
pay. When the workingmen in the Homestead mills resisted the 
Pinkerton police, those who protected the mill were the better 
element of the workingmen; but when the Pinkerton’s surrendered, 
they were treated with respect and courtesy, and were being conducted 
to the place of detention, quietly, when outside the works, there 
lined up 2,000 of the baser sort, who perpetrated upon the helpless 
prisoners shameful indignities, beating them, throwing dirt and sand 
into their faces, tripping them, and calling them by the vilest epi¬ 
thets, thus changing the sentiment of the country against the working¬ 
men, and at the same time endangering the peace of the community, to 
such an extent that the entire state national guard was called to 
encamp for two or three weeks in that unfortunate town. 

Gentlemen, the influence of this dangerous class does not stop 
with the immediate sections where they segregate in such vast 
numbers. As the stream partakes of the same nature as the fountain 
head, so the stream of moral and civil contamination flows outwardly 
through the land until the farthest extremity of our domain feels 
the rancor of the disease that festers in our congested centers of 
population. 

There are inducements held out to encourage immigration, and 
these might be enumerated as fourfold : 

1. Those of governmental authority in* the older European coun¬ 
tries to induce to emigrate or transport those who are paupers, 
criminals, or otherwise undesirable and burdenable. I have in a 
word referred to this. It is a fact vouched by those who have given 
personal inspection to the matter that there are governments which 
encourage such emigration, and even have societies in which dues 
are paid to furnish a fund whereby paupers are transported to 
America; in fact, public moneys are used to transport such, claiming 
that it is cheaper to send their pauper poor to this country than to 
keep them in their own poorhouses. 

2. The employment of agents representing great industries to visit 
the human markets of Europe to hire laborers for American mills and 
other industrial establishments. This is so patent and so frequently 
referred to bv immigrant officials that it is only necessary to mention 
the fact. In eight times out of ten an immigrant on reachnig this 
country has a job waiting him, even if there is no job for an American. 
Scores of instances have come under my own observation of such 
gross injustice done American workmen in the interest of an alien. I 
have seen our own people at the mill office asking for work, and were 
told there was no opening, when the next minute an Italian or Slav 
would come to the office, with the tag of shipment still on him and 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


495 


smell of steerage passage still on his clothes, who would get a job for 
the mere asking. I saw one day while standing on the wharf in New 
York a ferryboat filled with immigrants. I saw Italian padrone 
agents culling out the Italians and corralling them until more than 
300 had been gotten together, where they were kicked and cuffed 
like cattle, when finally led by an agent and followed by another to 
bring up the rear, like driving a herd of cattle into the shambles, they 
were marched to the padrone headquarters where they were hired 
out to such parties who would pay the price for this "cheap labor. 
The padrone agent generally gets from tw r o to five dollars from each 
Italian and from two to three dollars from the firm who has bought 
them to install in his establishment at the expense of American 
laboring men. 

3. Another inducement to encourage this mighty alien immigra¬ 
tion is the oft-repeated story of the steamship companies which have 
their agents by the hundreds to cover such countries of Europe where 
there is the largest harvest of aliens to be obtained to ship steerage 
to America. 

Upon this point the Commissioner-General of Immigration in his 
report of 1909, on pages 112 and 113, in giving the reasons for the 
1 ‘increased and increasing inflow of Iberic and Slavic people/’ says: 

But these do not afford what is believed to be the principal, the underlying explana¬ 
tion. The truth of the matter is that the peasants of the countries mentioned have 
for a number of years supplied a rich harvest to the promoter of immigration. The 
promoter is usually a steamship agent, employed on a commission basis, or a profes¬ 
sional money lender, or a combination of the two. His only interest is wholly a 
selfish one of gaining his commission and collecting his usury. He is employed by 
the steamship lines, large and small, without scruple, and to the enormous profit of 
such lines. The more aliens they bring over the more there are to be carried back, 
if failure meets the tentative immigrant, and the more are likely to follow later if 
success is his lot. Whatever the outcome, it is a good commercial proposition for 
the steamship line. To say that the steamship lines are responsible, directly or 
indirectly, for this unnatural immigration is not the statement of a theory but of a 
fact, and of a fact that sometimes becomes, indeed, if it is not always, a crying shame. 

In discussing further the evils growing out of ‘‘artificial induced” 
immigration, the Commissioner-General adds: “It may be asserted 
as a general rule that stimulated immigration is undesirable. As 
already stated, a large part of our immigration is known to be of 
that character.” 

The fact of the promotion of immigration by steamship companies 
has so frequently been brought to your attention, gentlemen, that 
I will not take your valuable time to make further reference to it, 
only so far, that their opposition to this bill and similar bills is proof 
that they are in favor of a wdde-open-gate policy. Surely the Ameri¬ 
can workingman has the ri<dit to protection from this low-priced 
labor. And the only place these millions of workingmen of our own 
race, kith, and blood can get protection is from our American states¬ 
men composing our American Congress, of whom we are asking favor¬ 
able consideration of the bill in question. 

4. Another inducement that encourages such a large influx of 
aliens, especially from Italy, and to a lesser degree from Austria- 
Hungary, grows out of economic conditions. This is a phase of the 
immigration problem very lightly touched upon and not well under¬ 
stood. Italy is a very populous country, and is a little larger than the 
area of two New York States, and has 33,000,000 people. Twenty 
per cent own the entire country, 40 per cent are tenants, and the other 


496 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


40 per cent are laborers, at 25 to 40 cents a day. Her public debt is 
more than twice as large as that of the United States, to pay the 
interest of which requires 42J per cent of the taxes collected, and 23 
per cent more is required to support the standing army. The tax is 
$81 per capita, and to meet this taxation, or rather to increase the 
value of her resources, the governmental authorities encourage the 
emigration to America of her labor population where fortunes, so far 
as an Italian looks at it, are quickly made, the bulk of wdiich money 
is returned to Italy. Fully 500,000 emigrate to the various countries 
in a year, and to facilitate this gigantic movement the Government 
has established an emigrant department, which differs from our 
immigrant bureau, whose chief object is to look after those who desire 
to come to us. The object of the Italian bureau of emigration is to 
send them out, and at the same time they are urged not to become 
American citizens; to remain loyal to the mother country, make all 
the money they can, save all they can, live just as cheaply as they can, 
and with their surplus return to their native land, and put it in circu¬ 
lation for the betterment of the country, so as to make a largerresource 
for the nation and increase its taxable property. 

The reports of the Commissioner-General show that this fact is 
true; that the vast majority of Italians and Hungarians do not come 
to stay, only so long as they can accumulate a good bank account, 
and then they depart. This is the reason that more men come than 
women. In one year out of 221,479 immigrants from Italy, only 38,000 
were females—that is, the majority came not to make America their 
home. One year, in round numbers, 193,000 Italians came through 
our portals, and same year 129,000 passed out for their old home. 
One of the managers of the Hamburg Line said that in 1904, 575,000 
entered our country through Ellis Island, and 359,000 passed out. 
The last report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration shows 
that during the calendar year of 1909, 751,786 immigrants emigrated 
to this country, and 192,449 nonimmigrants; and 225,802 aliens, and 
174,590 nonaliens departed. In the panic year of 1908, 714,165 immi¬ 
grant and nonimmigrant left the country. * Of this number belonging 
to the immigrant class, Italy sent to us 134,246, and there returned to 
their old home 214,212. Same year Austria-Hungary sent to us 
171,798, and those who left us for their own country numbered 
177,261. According to last report of the Commissioner-General for 
the year 1909, those who came from Slavic and Iberic races num¬ 
bered 460,005 out of a grand total of immigrants for the vear of 
944,235. 

There is another phase of this great problem of immigration that 
has not been referred to by those who have studied the question, its 
disastrous fruits in the times of America’s industrial and financial 
depressions. In the years of the great industrial activity, as in 1905 
and 1906, more than 2,300,000 immigrants passed our portals, but 
when the panic or industrial depression of 1907 and 1908 came upon 
our country, like locusts these millions ate up our substance and left 
hundreds of thousands of our American workingmen on the verge of 
want. 

Some have charged the late depression to President Roosevelt; 
some to Wall street and the great moneyed corporations. How 
much either or all these were causes for the depression, I know not; 
but one cause, however, has not been touched upon by apologists 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 497 

for that depression—the immigrant’s drain upon the nation’s medium 
of circulation—its money—which cause is twofold. 

A few weeks ago there appeared before you representatives of the 
railroad employees of this country, and in that hearing there was 
brought to your attention the cost for a month upon which an Italian 
or Hungarian could subsist, and how much he could save out of his 
income. A few years ago I had opportunity to inquire into the same 
phase of the immigrant question and arrived at about the same con¬ 
clusion, the amounts in figures differing but slightly. ‘ The Bureau of 
Labor issued a pamphlet dealing with this problem. The results of 
that examination snowed that in 89 gangs aggregating more than 
1,500 men the average earnings was $37.07 per man per month, 
while the cost for food per man for a month was $5.30 and for shanty 
room and sundries $1.49, leaving for each man a net surplus of 
$30.27 a month. 

Now, what had this to do with our late industrial depressions? 
Much, every way. First, the lack of the consumption of the products 
of the country, which meant the lack of outlay of money for same, 
was a drain'upon the nation’s wealth, because that surplus was kept 
from circulation. The American working man lives up to his income; 
hence his wages are kept in circulation, therefore keeping in good 
health the body politic. 

But this drain from the lack of the consumption of the products of 
the nation with the $30 stored away is insignificant compared with 
the amount of the savings for the month and year that are removed 
from our country to the Old World. Here is a decisive drain on the 
nation’s wealth, it being estimated that $200,000,000 is taken out 
in a year—$75,000,000 to Italy alone, and as a compensation for this 
drain last year the immigrants brought with them but $17,331,828. 

President Roosevelt in his message of December 3, 1901, said: 

Not only must our labor be protected by the tariff, but it should also be protected 
so far as possible from the presence in the country of any laborers brought over by 
contract, or those who, coming freely, yet represent a standard of living so depressed 
that they can undersell our men in the labor market and drag them to a lower level. 
Our present immigration laws are unsatisfactory. There should be a comprehensive 
law enacted with the object of working threefold improvement over our present 
system. 

First. We should aim to exclude absolutely not only all persons who are known to 
be believers in anarchistic principles or members of anarchistic societies,but also all 
persons who are of a low tendency or of unsavory reputation. This means that we 
should require a more thorough system of inspection abroad and a more rigid system 
of examination at our immigration ports, the former being especially necessary. 

The second object of a proper immigration law ought to be to secure by a careful 
and not merely perfunctory educational test, some intelligent capacity to appreciate 
American institutions and act sanely as American citizens. 

This would not keep out all anarchists, for many of them belong to the intelligent 
criminal classes. But it will do what is also in point; that is, tend to decrease the sum 
of ignorance, so potent in producing the envy, suspicion, malignant passion, and 
hatred of order, out of w r hich anarchistic sentiment mentally springs. 

Finally, all persons should be excluded who are below a certain standard of eco¬ 
nomic fitness to enter our industrial fields as competitors with American labor. 

There should be proper proof of personal capacity to earn an American living and 
enough money to insure a decent start under American conditions. This would stop 
the influx of cheap labor and the resulting competition whlbh gives rise to so much 
of bitterness in American industrial life, and it would dry up the spring of the pesti¬ 
lential social conditions in our great cities, where anarchistic organizations have their 
greatest possibility of growth. 

Both the educational and economic test in a wise immigration law should be 
designed to protect and elevate the great body politic and social. A very close super 

49090—10-32 



498 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


vision should be exercised over the steamship companies which mainly bring oyer 
the immigrant, and they should be held to a strict accountability for any infraction 
of the law. 

Immigration into the United States for the year ending June 30, 

1902, was 648,743. 

President Roosevelt in his message of December 2, 1902, said: 

I again call your attention to the need of a proper immigration law, covering the 
points outlined in my message to you at the first of the session of the present Congress; 
substantially such'a bill has already passed the House. 

Immigration into the United States for the year ending June 30, 

1903, was 857,046. 

President Roosevelt in his message December 2, 1903, said: 

The need is to devise some system by which the undesirable immigrants shall be 
kept out entirely, while desirable immigrants are properly distributed throughout 
the country. 

Immigration into the United States for the year ending June 30, 

1904, was 812,870. 

With this increase of immigration and the alarms already sounded 
by Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt, the American people became 
aroused and at conventions held in many places in the United States, 
strong resolutions for the restriction of immigration were adopted. 
The National Conference on Immigration held in New York City on 
December 6-7, 1905, under the auspices of the National Civic Fed¬ 
eration, in a resolution unanimously adopted, declared— 

That the members of the national conference on immigration heartily indorse the 
wise suggestions of the President of the United States in his annual message to Con¬ 
gress regarding the enforcement and amendments of laws concerning immigration, 
and regarding an international conference to deal with the question. 

They urged upon Congress the speedy passage of the laws required 
to put such recommendations into effect. 

Immigration into the United States for the year ending June 30, 

1905, was 1,026,499. 

President Roosevelt, in his message to Congress, December 5, 1905, 
said: 

The question of immigration is of vital interest to this country. In the year ending 
June 30, 1905, there came to the United States 1,026,000 alien immigrants. More¬ 
over, a considerable proportion of it, probably a very large proportion, including 
most of the undesirable class, does not come here of its own initiative, but because 
of the activity of the agents of the great transportation companies. These agents 
are distributed throughout Europe, and by the offer of all kinds of inducements 
they wheedle and cajole many immigrants, often against their best interests, to come 
here. The most serious obstacle we have to encounter in the effort to secure a proper 
regulation of the immigration to these shores arises from the determined opposition 
of the foreign steamship lines who have no interest whatever in the matter save to 
increase the returns on their capital by carrying masses of immigrants hither in the 
steerage quarters of their ships. 

Immigration into the United States for the year ending June 10, 

1906, was 1,100,736, and for the year ending June 30, 1907, 1,285,349. 
On account of the panic in the fall of 1907 the news was spread all 

over southern Europe that many men were out of employment in the 
United States, and to this is due the fact that the immigration into 
the United States for the year ending June 30, 1908, was 732,870. 

If 343,267 immigrants alarmed President McKinley, and if 487,918 
immigrants in 1901 alarmed President Roosevelt and the laboring 
classes and patriotic people, then the large increase of immigration 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


499 


in more recent years should stir our entire citizenship to agitation 
and every legislative body in the nation to action. 

During the month of March, 1909, the Ohio legislature (President 
Taft’s State) passed the following resolution: 

Whereas the dumping of a million immigrants into the United States annually is a 
fact for which the world offers no precedent and is a menace to American institutions, 
the American home, and the American laborer; and 

Whereas there are now many bills before the Congress of the United States for the 
better regulation of immigration and the revision of the tariff; and 

Whereas the regulation of foreign immigration is a necessary supplement to the tariff, 
an essential element in the protection of America from ruinous competition by cheap 
labor at home, ruinous in our endeavor to establish an American industrial democracy; 
and 

Whereas a protective tariff without proper immigration regulation is a travesty 
on the industrial problem: Therefore be it 

Resolved by the general assembly of the State of Ohio, That we respectfully ask our 
Senators and Representatives in Congress to enact more stringent immigration laws 
to protect our people, both native-born and naturalized, against wholesale immigra¬ 
tion from foreign lands. 

Similar resolutions were passed by other States. 

The contention we make is that we should take care of our own 
people first. The argument is often made that this is a free country; 
that we should open our arms to everyone; that America should be 
the home for the downtrodden and the oppressed of all lands. Well, 
that is a very beautiful sentiment, one worthy of those who utter it; 
but my idea is that the true way to live, the true way to push forward 
civilization, is to build up the best standards, not to tear them down. 
As was recently said on the floor of the United States Senate: 

It has long been our boast that America offers an asylum for the oppressed of all 
nations, and Liberty Enlightening the World stands beckoning such to our shores. 
It is time, Mr. President, that this sentiment should be relegated to the limbo of 
things to be forgotten, and give place to the more practical sentiment that our own 
must be provided for. 

I believe that is our first duty as American citizens—to take care 
of our own families should be first before taking care of another’s 
family; to care for our neighbors first before taking care of those who 
come to us, or want to come, who have no parity of feeling with us. 

Self-defense is the first law of nature as well as of nations. If 
the Scriptural statement that the man who "careth not for his own 
household is worse than an infidel” is true, then the nation that 
permits its institutions and people to be endangered from any cause 
certainly, if that cause can be removed, is no less guilty of the viola¬ 
tion of that sacred injunction, both from the standpoint of Christian 
and natural laws. 

Charity begins at home, and while the United States has opened 
its gates to the earth’s millions and offered an asylum to the oppressed, 
and a home for the unfortunate, still this great country has no right 
to carry its hospitality one step over the line where American insti¬ 
tutions^ and American workingmen and the American standard of 
wages and living is brought into serious peril. Since 1900 from 
eight to nine millions of foreigners have entered our portals. No 
nation in human history ever undertook to deal with such masses 
of alien population. The man must be a sentimentalist and an 
optimist beyond all bounds of. reason who believes we can take such 
a load upon the national stomach that can not be assimilated, 
thereby threatening the life and health of the Republic. 


500 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


This, gentlemen, is the nation’s peril and crises. The “new face 
at the door” is a significant fact. The fable of the camel, the tent, 
and the master is likely to become a reality. The face of this great 
camel is not only at the door, but the head and shoulders are within. 
How long will it be until the whole body will be within and the “ dead 
line” is reached? It is the patriotic as well as Christian duty Of 
our Congress to save this country from the bilge waters of foreign 
habits, vices, and influences. 

The ancients dreamed of an island toward the setting sun, called 
Hesperides, a place where flowers sent forth their sweetest fragrance 
and where fruits ripened in every month of the year. That Hesper¬ 
ides is our Columbia, with its fertile valleys, its broad prairies, its 
golden gate, and its fair Southland. But an enemy hath entered the 
beautiful garden, and has gnarled its fruits and poisoned its flowers. 

Troy was safe until Minerva induced its defenders to open its gates 
to admit the Trojan horse, when out of its belly came forth the 
instruments of Troy’s destruction. Unrestricted immigration is the 
Trojan horse in our midst. From it comes our danger and ultimate 
destruction, unless the gates are closed against all “undesirables,” 
so that the absorptive powers of this great nation may properly 
assimilate that which it has already on the national stomach. 

Gentlemen, it is not necessary to enlarge on the statements I have 
made of facts cited, as you have them fully presented by the Com¬ 
missioner-General of Immigration and the various commissions 
that have been studying this problem. The statements and data 
presented by tho'se who are familiar with the subject, and who have 
studied the problem both here and abroad, should receive, as I 
believe they will, careful consideration from your honorable com¬ 
mittee. 

Before I sit down, there is another fact I wish to impress upon your 
minds. This organization I represent, with more than 400,000 mem¬ 
bers, is not the only one asking for restrictive measures at the hands 
of Congress. Scores of other organizations, associations, and socie¬ 
ties are in harmony with our contention. Not only the native is 
asking for a restrictive measure, but naturalized and unnaturalized 
foreigners, who came here for a home and have made this their 
adopted country and are a part of our bone and sinew, are asking 
for such legislation, to keep out the undesirable element from their 
own native countries. Again, a large number of labor unions of this 
country have taken decided grounds for proper restriction of immi¬ 
gration. This statement has the verification of Mr. John Mitchell, 
who was for years at the head of a great labor confederation. He 
has been and still is a representative of labor interests, and these 
unions are observing the importation of cheap and pauperized as 
well as undesirable labor from Europe that is affecting the millions 
of American workingmen. 

Gentlemen, if we would keep our country in the place it has fully 
earned, that of the foremost republic, yea, the foremost nation of 
the earth, we must shield it from those baleful influences growing 
out of unrestricted immigration that sooner or later will bring dis” 
aster to us. If we would have the mighty current of our national 
power move onward unchecked in the fulfillment of its great mission, 
we must preserve our institutions, our people, and our citizenship 
from the corrupting and baleful influences of Europe’s undesirable 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


501 


aliens, pouring in upon us, at the rate of a million a year. Our grand 
Anglo-Saxon character must be preserved and the pure, unmixed 
blood flowing down from our Aryan progenitors must not be mingled 
with the Iberic race, composed of the lower types of the race. We 
should stand for a safe and sane policy of restriction. Let the world 
call that selfishness if it will; after all, “National selfishness is the 
highest type of patriotism,” as declared on one occasion by a member 
of the American Congress. 

Gentlemen, in conclusion, I trust that the gravity of the situation 
confronting our country and the importance of the subject may be 
felt to such a degree that you will give it the most careful and thought¬ 
ful consideration. Immediate action to restrict immigration is 
necessary in order to protect our wage-earners against the vicious, 
criminal, pauper labor that is being permitted to enter our ports. 
We should maintain the high standard established by our American 
laborer. His right to such wages in order that he have a comfortable 
home, and a sufficient competency to enable him to educate his chil¬ 
dren and maintain his dignity as an American citizen, is unquestioned. 

We look to you, gentlemen, for such legislation that will preserve 
and protect that standard of living and citizenship for which we 
contend. 

I thank you, gentlemen, for your courtesy in listening to me. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. WEITZEL, ESQ., OF CINCINNATI, 

OHIO, VICE-COUNCILOR OF THE JUNIOR ORDER OF UNITED 

AMERICAN MECHANICS. 

Mr. Weitzel. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I notice that the 
hour is half past 11, and so far as I am concerned, if it is agreeable 
to you gentlemen, I am willing to submit my statement to you and 
have it made a matter of record without reading it. 

The Chairman. There- is no objection. Without reading it, it will 
be printed. 

Mr. Weitzel. Yes. I wish to state that I came here for the express 
purpose of making a denial of some of the statements that are con¬ 
tained in the public records, and for that reason and that reason 
alone I came here to present this paper. 

Mr. Burnett. Will you call attention briefly to the statements that 
you wish to deny, without going into the subject-matter of your 
paper there in detail? 

Mr. Weitzel. Yes, sir. I wish to call attention to the statement, 
according to page 472 of the printed hearings, where a member of 
the committee states that he is reliably informed that the Junior 
Order is the same as the old decadent A. P. A. and is merely operat¬ 
ing under a new name. 

Another charge, on page 365, says we are engaged in a particular 
propaganda, and I take it the person who made the statement believed 
he had been informed by what he considered as reliable authority; 
also that the Junior Order was an anti-Catholic organization. No 
doubt his information came from over-zealous church enthusiasts, as, 
for instance, the editor of this paper here, the Morning Star, a Cath¬ 
olic weekly, who has several articles in the issue of April 23, 1910. 
I just quote some lines in one of those articles in my paper, and will 
not take the time to read them. 


502 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Mr. Burnett. Your statement is that it is not anti-Catholic and 
nonsectarian ? 

Mr. Weitzel. Yes; that it is not anti-Catholic and nonsectarian, 
as stated by the Rev. Mr. Lichliter. We state that fact as beyond 
contradiction, and we challenge anyone that makes a statement to 
the contrary.. 

Mr. Sabath. I am willing that all of that should go in, but I would 
like to go over the article before it goes in. 

Mr. Burnett. Let it go into the printed record, and if any reply 
is desired, it can be made. 

Mr. Sabath. Then let it go in. I have no objection. 

The Chairman. The committee will now stand adjourned. 

(Thereupon, at 11.30 o’clock a. m., the committee adjourned.) 

(Following is the statement filed by Mr. Weitzel:) 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in the first place, 
as a member of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics and 
its national vice-councilor, and chairman of the national legislative 
committee of the Daughters of America, I beg to correct an impres¬ 
sion conveyed to this committee by certain persons who have not 
only appeared here, but who have been elsewhere, quite misrepre¬ 
senting the principles, objects, aims, and purposes of the Junior 
Order of United American Mechanics. 

According to page 472 of the printed hearings, a member of this 
committee states that he has been “reliably informed” that the 
Junior Order “is the same as the old bigoted A. P. A.,” and is 
“ merely operating under a new name.” Another Congressman 
charges the order (p. 365) with engaging in a “particular propa¬ 
ganda,” and I take it that he had been informed by what he consid¬ 
ered “ reliable authority ” also that the Junior Order was an anti- 
Catholic organization. And, no doubt, his information came from 
some such over-zealous church enthusiast as, for instance, the editor 
of the Morning Star, a Catholic weekly, who has several articles 
in his issue of April 23, 1910, from which I desire to quote a few 
lines. In one editorial, entitled “ Catholics and the duty of the 
hour,” everlastingly criticising President Roosevelt for the Vatican 
incident, there are, among others, the following sentences: “All this 
cry of anticlericals, Protestants, and Masonic orders of ‘ Down with 
the church,’ ‘Away with the Pope,’ is bombast and nonsense. Know¬ 
ing our strength, what have we to fear? See the strength of Free 
Masonr}?- and anticlericals. Are we not more powerful than they? 
Cognizant that we are the heirs of all ages in truth and doctrine, 
and that ours is the only church founded by Jesus Christ, why should 
we hide our light under a bushel ? ” In another column reference 
is made to the Junior Order and Daughters of America, whose 
“ avowed purpose ” is editorially asserted to be “ nothing else than 
a revival of the fierce war waged by the infamous A. P. A.’s some 
years ago against the Catholic Church.” 

There is no foundation in fact for such statements, and I am sure 
they do not represent either in the matter of Masonry, Protestant¬ 
ism, Roosevelt, or the Junior Order the sentiments and attitude by 
which the entire church would be judged. 

Just as an instance and in order to show T that such criticism is not 
general, and that the order is nonsectarian, I desire to call the com¬ 
mittee’s attention to the friendly feeling existing between and 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


503 


courtesies exchanged between three conventions of Catholics, Juniors, 
and Daughters of America which happened to meet in Canton, Ohio, 
September, 1906. 

The Junior Order is not an antireligionist society; it is no more 
anti-Catholic than the Knights of Pythias, Elks, Odd Fellows, or the 
American Federation of Labor for that matter, every one of which 
have members of the Catholic faith and favor the enactment of more 
restrictive immigration laws. The Junior Order is a patriotic, 
fraternal, benevolent, and beneficiary organization, dating back 
almost a century. It cares for its sick, buries its dead, looks after 
their widows and orphans, provides insurance, stands for compulsory 
education, believes in freedom of conscience and liberty of worship, 
advocates good naturalization laws and the judicious restriction of 
undesirable immigration. Its motto, “ Virtue, liberty, and patriot¬ 
ism,” appeals to the very highest sentiment and to the very best in 
man. 

In 1905-6, through its national legislative committee, the order 
joined in the general demand for a correction of the scandalous 
naturalization frauds and immigration evils that were continually 
shocking the public conscience, and so forcibly called attention to 
by President Roosevelt, who recommended strongly the enactment 
of the illiteracy test, a money requirement, and other restrictive meas¬ 
ures, and who said in one of his annual messages to Congress: 

In the year ending June 30, 1905, there came to the United States 1,026,000 
alien immigrants. Most of the undesirable class does not come here of its own 
initiative, but because of the activities of agents of transportation companies. 
These agents wheedle and cajole many immigrants, often against their own 
interests, to come here. The most serious obstacle we have to encounter in the 
effort to secure proper regulation of immigration to these shores arises from 
the detrimental opposition of foreign steamship lines, who have no interest 
whatever in the matter save to increase the returns on their capital by carry¬ 
ing masses of immigration hither in the steerage of their ships. 

With the passage of a fairly good naturalization law and the enact¬ 
ment of an immigration law shutting out a few more of the very 
worst elements, and creating an investigating commission, the national 
council has not, as alleged before this committee, been carrying on 
any “ particular propaganda ” or engaged in any active campaign for 
the further restriction of immigration since that time; but in order 
not to be charged with leaving a wrong impression, I beg to say that 
this fall, with the final report of the commission assured, its national 
legislative committee will again respond to the wishes of the member¬ 
ship and try to assist in helping along the demand for such conserva¬ 
tive and rational legislation as will, when once enacted, although 
bitterly opposed at the time of the demand, meet with the approval 
of practically every one of its opponents when the demanded legisla¬ 
tion is once upon the statute books, just as all existing naturalization 
and immigration exclusion laws have been opposed at the time of 
their enactment only to later meet Avith approval. 

The order is not opposed to all immigration at all. It is not op¬ 
posed to foreigners already in this country at all, merely because they 
are foreign born; but stands not only for taking care of and lending 
a helping hand to the strangers within our gates, but also stands for 
immigration legislation that will protect them as much for legisla¬ 
tion that will protect those that Avere born here; and principally 
because such legislation will tend to counteract the present profit- 


504 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


making selection of our immigrants and the present artificial stimula¬ 
tion of immigration traffic, in which there is the most money for the 
foreign steamship companies. As to distribution as a remedy we 
would quote President Roosevelt to the^ effect that distribution is 
merely a palliative and not a cure. It is advocated chiefly by the 
transportation interests financially interested in the promotion of 
immigration and because distribution and diversion would make 
more room for them to unload more immigrants if successfully car¬ 
ried out. We do not at all favor restrictive legislation simply because 
southeast European and western Asiatic countries send us almost 
exclusively Catholics and Jews, but it is for purely patriotic and pro¬ 
tective reasons that we advocate such additional selective restrictive 
measures as a $25 to $50 money test, such as Canada has, and such 
an illiteracy test as Cape Colony, New Zealand, and Australia have, 
which, together with our being made by the foreign steamships the 
cheapest country to reach, we believe to a large measure accounts for 
our being the only country with any considerable net foreign immi¬ 
gration. 

Our desire for better immigration laws is not founded on any 
religious or other prejudice, foreign or native. That there are “ im¬ 
migration evils ” demanding drastic action is a matter of official 
record. The first partial report of the Immigration Commission 
(H. Doc. 1489, 60th Cong.) states: “ Many undeniably undesirable 
persons are-admitted every year. There is a dangerous and appar¬ 
ently growing criminal element in the country due to immigration.” 
And even says, “ Many women are being regularly imported under 
conditions v T hich amount to absolute slavery,” etc. 

It was Marcus Braun, a government inspector, who foreshadowed 
the commission’s finding, and even discovered a secret contract be¬ 
tween a foreign steamship company and a foreign government that 
provided for the dumping practically of so many thousand annu¬ 
ally upon the United States, and who, according to House Document 
384, Fifty-ninth Congress, reported officially of his foreign tour of 
inspection: * 

I found a condition of things which convinced me beyond any doubt that some 
European governments, agencies, and private individuals are continuing to 
regard this country as the dumping ground for thousands of their undesirable 
people. These conditions, coupled with the arrogant and widespread assump¬ 
tion that this country is but an asset of a large number of Europeans, subject 
only to their desires and orders, is such that if universally known in this coun¬ 
try would drive the blood of humiliation into the face of every good American 
and a description of which would defy the pen of a Macaulay. 

Certainly Marcus Braun, a foreign-born investigator, can not be 
charged with bigotry or nativist or religious bias and prejudice. 
Neither can such a charge be lodged successfully against Ambassador 
Andrew D. White, Commissioner Bingham, Commissioner William 
Williams, Doctor Darlington, Theodore Roosevelt, or the United 
States Bureau of Immigration whose words and expert opinions in 
the premises I beg to call to your attention. 

Andrew D. White, our ambassador to Germany, wrote from Berlin 
April 19, 1905, to Mr. Josiah Flynt, as follows: 

Dear Mr. Flynt : As you know, I consider the problems furnished by crime 
in the United States as of the most pressing importance. We are allowing a 
great and powerful criminal class to be developed, and while crime is held care¬ 
fully in check in most European countries, and in them is steadily decreasing, 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


505 


with us it is more and more flourishing. It increases from year to year and iu 
various ways asserts its power in society. 

So well is this coming to be known by criminal classes of Europe, that it is 
perfectly well understood here that they look upon the United States as a 
“ happy hunting ground,” and more and more seek it, to the detriment of our 
country and all that we hold most dear in it. 

Yours, faithfully, Andrew D. White. 

In this connection I beg to say in passing that over one-fifth of all 
the alien felons now confined in our state and federal jails and 
prisons are illiterate, every one of whom and their offspring would 
have been excluded, as well as the Czolgosz family, by the illiteracy. 

There are two extracts from a previous report of the present com¬ 
missioner of immigration at Ellis Island, Hon. William Williams, 
who handles the bulk of the present alien influx of from about a 
million to almost a million and a half aliens annually, that I beg to 
read. In his report, as practically in last year’s report, he said: 

The laws do not reach a large body of immigrants who are generally un¬ 
desirable, because unintelligent, of low vitality, of poor physique, able to per¬ 
form only the cheapest kind of manual labor, desirous of locating almost 
exclusively in the cities, by their competition tending to reduce the standard 
of the wage-worker, and unfitted mentally or morally for good citizenship. I 
believe that at least 200,000 (and probably more) aliens came here who, al¬ 
though they may be able to earn a living, yet are not wanted, will be of no bene¬ 
fit to the country, and will, on the contrary, be a detriment, because their 
presence will tend to lower our standards. Their coming has been of benefit 
chiefly, if not only, to the transportation companies which brought them here. 

Relying on the views generally expressed by the intelligent press throughout 
the country, on those expressed by nine out of ten citizens, whether native or 
foreign born, with whom one discusses the subject; on letters received from 
charitable and reformatory institutions in some eastern States, and upon 
official observation at Ellis Island, I would state without hesitation that the 
vast majority of American citizens wish to see steps taken to prevent these 
undesirable elements from landing on our shores. Attempts to take such 
steps will be opposed by powerful and selfish interests, and they will insist, 
among other things, on the value of immigration in the past and the enormous 
demand for labor, neither of them relevant as applicable to the particular ques¬ 
tion whether the undesirable immigrants shall be prevented from coming here. 
Europe, like every other part of the w r orld, has millions of undesirable people 
whom she would be glad to part with, and strong agencies are constantly at 
work to send some of them here. Aliens have no inherent right whatever to 
come here, and w T e may and should take means, however radical and drastic, 
to keep out all below 7 a certain physical and economic standard of fitness and all 
whose presence will tend to lower our standards of living and civilization. 

Right in line with Commissioner Williams’s opinion are the recom¬ 
mendations of the experts of the United States Immigration Bureau, 
as set forth in the last annual report (1909) of 244 pages. In the 
first place, we quite agree with what the bureau has to say on page 
7 in regard to administration. 

An ideal administration of the immigration law would prevent the entry of 
undesirable aliens to such an extent that the provisions contemplating expul¬ 
sion would seldom need to be invoked. Such standard is, like all ideals, diffi¬ 
cult of attainment: but it can be more nearly approximated than at present, 
provided the foregoing suggestions are adopted and the law T is strengthened, 
rounded out, and completed. The bureau believes in a strict administration, 
not only because it is best calculated to protect the country against undesirable 
immigration, but because of its humanitarian advantages. A rigid enforce¬ 
ment of the law, in the final analysis, is the most humane. If it becomes 
thoroughly understood by all that only certain well-defined desirable classes 
will be permitted to land on our shores, other classes w r ill hesitate to apply, 
and the transportation companies will refuse to bring them. 


506 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


In this connection, I, would like to urge upon the committee the 
serious consideration also of carrying out previous recommenda¬ 
tions of the bureau, to not only increase the fine upon steamships 
for bringing here dangerously diseased aliens, but to also extend it 
to the bringing here of any undesirable excluded by law, whose 
undesirability might have been ascertained at the time either of 
foreign embarkation or of purchase of ticket by a medical or other 
competent examination or investigation. It is a matter of common 
knowledge that the transportation interests pursue the course most 
profitable to them. Very few, if any of them make any genuine 
effort to turn back undesirables. It is more profitable for them to 
occasionally pay the present fine and to deport those excluded than 
to reject them as the law requires at the foreign ports and thus save 
the hardships of deportation. Mr. Burnett, a member of this com¬ 
mittee and a member of the commission, found the examination at 
Queenstown to be a farce—not to be an examination at all, I have 
been reliably informed. And only a month ago Commissioner 
Williams at Ellis Island issued another circular letter calling atten¬ 
tion to the “ wholly inadequate attention” paid abroad to and re¬ 
spect for our exclusion laws. 

On page 111 and following the bureau calls attention to the sources 
of and inducements to immigration, pointing out how not only the 
quantity has increased recently, but the quality has changed, the 
number of deficients, dependents, and delinquents having increased 
by leaps and bounds, and resulted in Congress passing a series of 
acts excluding various classes, and thus entering upon a restrictive 
policy toward European immigration. 

Among other things the report says: 

The bureau has repeatedly called attention to the interesting and important 
economic problem constituted by this increase in the influx of peoples so dif¬ 
ferent racially from the original settlers of the country—peoples who, in their 
antecedents, ideas (political and social), and methods of life and thought, are 
quite distinct from the Teutonic and Celtic stocks, from which our immigration 
was for so many years derived. What will be the result of a continuance of 
this preponderance is a question which concerns every thoughtful patriotic 
American citizen. From our point of view, at least, heterogeneousness in a 
matter of this kind is undesirable, homogeneousness desirable. There can be 
but little homogeneity between the people of southern and eastern Europe and 
the real American. 

The “ explanation ” for this enormous changed alien influx from 
countries of western Asia and eastern Europe is simply that “ the 
peasants of the countries mentioned have supplied a rich harvest to 
the promoter of immigration ”—the “ steamship ticket agent.” His 
interest is the wholly selfish one of gaining his commission and col¬ 
lecting his usury. He is employed by the steamship lines, large and 
small, without scruple, and to the enormous profit of such lines. To 
say that the steamship lines are responsible, directly or indirectly, 
for this unnatural immigration is not a statement of a theory but of 
a fact, and of a fact that sometimes becomes, indeed, if it is not 
always, a crying shame. It has been proven to at least a moral cer¬ 
tainty by statements that have been made to the bureau by its agents 
detailed abroad in past years, some of which have been quoted in pre¬ 
vious reports. It has been demonstrated in both a moral and a legal 
sense by a report and accompanying documentary evidence submitted 
to the bureau during the past year by Contract Labor Inspector John 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


507 


Gruenberg, who spent several months in Europe and in this country 
in the conduct of a quiet but deep investigation covering the entire 
field of “ artificially induced immigration.” 

The bureau is very clear in its attitude toward legislation. It says, 
page 5, u the bureau believes that the time has come for the adoption 
of some measures more restrictive,” and has this to say about the 
literacy test and an increased head tax : 

There is considerable merit in each proposal; but do either or even both of 
them constitute a test sufficiently high or exacting to reach the said class above 
mentioned? If either a literacy test or an increased head tax, or the two com¬ 
bined, will partly effect that object, the adoption of such a measure obviously 
would be advisable. 

Among the recommendations of the bureau, as set forth in its last 
annual report, are also the following: 

Persons economically undesirable; all male aliens between the ages of 16 and 
50 unable to stand the army recruiting test, because they are admitted to a 
share in our institutions and ought to be able to defend them if occasion should 
require. 

These and other recommendations such as a new immigration act 
of 50 sections, to be found on pages 153 to 174 of the report, are to be 
found in H. R. 21588, introduced by Congressman Elvins, which, as 
well as H. R. 13404, introduced by Congressman Hayes, meet with 
great favor with not only the Junior Order and Daughters of Amer¬ 
ica, but also the Hamilton County immigration bureau of Ohio, and 
would remedy, in our opinion, the conditions even called attention to 
by such a distinguished poet as Thomas Bailey Aldrich, of Boston, 
with which I beg to conclude, thanking you for the privilege and 
honor of being heard upon this important question: 


UNGUARDED GATES. 


Wide open and unguarded stand our gates, 

And through them press a wild, a motley throng— 
Men from the Volga and the Tartar steppes, 
Featureless figures of the Hoang-Ho, 

Malayan, Scythian, Teuton, Kelt, and Slav, 

Flying the Old World’s poverty and scorn; 

These bringing with them unknown gods and rites, 
Those tiger passions, here to stretch their claws. 

In street and alley what strange tongues are these, 
Accents of menace alien to our air, 

Voices that once the tower of Babel knew! 

O, Liberty, white goddess, is it well 
To leave "the gate unguarded? On thy breast 
Fold sorrow’s children, soothe the hurts of fate, 
Lift the downtrodden, but with the hand of steel 
Stay those who to thy sacred portals come 
To waste the gift of freedom. Have a care 
Lest from thy brow the clustered stars be torn 
And trampled in the dust. For so of old 
The thronging Goth and Vandal trampled Rome, 
And where the temples of the Cresars stood 
The lean wolf unmolested made her lair. 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives. 

STATEMENT BY THE HON. HENRY M. GOLDFOGLE, A REPRE¬ 
SENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK. 

The Committee on Immigration and Naturalization met on March 
15, 1910, with the following-named Representatives in attendance: 
Howell, Bennet, Burnett, Edwards, Gardner, Goldfogle, Hayes, John¬ 
son, Kustermann, Moore, of Pennsylvania, Moore, of Texas, and 
Sabath. Mr. Howell, the chairman, presided. 

Representative Henry M. Goldfogle, of New York, made the fol¬ 
lowing statement: 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my views on the 
Hayes and Elvins bills pending in this committee, and on the proposition 
submitted by Mr. Gardner, are so well understood that I feel certain 
that I need not repeat them again at length. I desire once again, 
however, distinctly and emphatically to voice mv opposition to these 
measures. There is no good reason to increase the head tax. The 
Government is now in receipt of more money from the head tax than 
is required to pay the entire expenses incident to carrying out the 
immigration laws and the maintenance of the Immigration Service. 
The argument is sometimes advanced that an increased head tax will 
tend to promote a better quality of immigrants. This argument is 
without merit. The real purpose of those who want the head tax in¬ 
creased is to make immigration more difficult and to greatly restrict 
it. The burden of the additional tax falls upon the immigrant and 
not upon the steamship companies, for when the companies will be 
required to pay an additional tax they will add it on to the fare of the 
immigrant. So that the proposed increase, from a financial stand¬ 
point, is unnecessary, and from other standpoints is as unwise as it is 
without reason. 

I am opposed to the proposed educational test. Some of the best 
citizens of this country, when they came here from abroad, were 
illiterate; their knowledge of reading and writing was acquired in our 
schools or through means of private instructions. On the other hand, 
some very bad and vicious men who unfortunately got among us— 
some of our criminal classes, in fact—could read and write when they 
came to this country; indeed, some were well educated when they landed. 
Such as these would have no difficulty in coming into the country 
under an educational test. That such a test will neither keep out the 
bad nor the viciously inclined has been demonstrated over and over 
again. The fact is proven by figures which appear in some of the 
508 




HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


509 


statements made at the hearings thus far before this committee. I 
would not, nor is it right that I, a member of the committee, should 
burden this record with an unnecessary repetition of these figures, and 
hence I refrain from citing them again. 

In New York City, the largest port of entry in this country, num¬ 
berless thousands of immigrants who when they landed were illiter¬ 
ate eagerly sought our schools to obtain an elementary education. 
The workers and the toilers who were so situated that they could not 
go to the day schools attended night schools. The classes are crowded 
with immigrant scholars who rapidty acquire a knowledge of the 
English and make remarkable progress in their studies. The children 
of the immigrant classes, as well in day as in evening schools, exhibit 
remarkable aptitude for study. Though some come to us illiterate, 
they quickly acquire a knowledge of the English. I speak by the 
record and challenge contradiction when I say the young immigrants, 
these children of immigrant parents, are among the brightest pupils in 
our schools. 

The arguments advanced b} 7 the restrictionists are the same old ones 
that have been made from time to time ever since the foundation of 
the Government. In the early part of our country’s history it was 
prophesied by some of the statesmen of those days that the country 
would go to ruin if immigration was encouraged or further immigra¬ 
tion permitted. At later stages the American Congress was warned 
that the influx of immigration was a menace to the nation. In various 
forms of expressions the alarm was sounded against immigration and 
the charge made that immigration was highly- detrimental to the best 
interests of the country. We have lived to see these prophesies van¬ 
ish like thin air. These fanciful theories, born of narrowness, of pro¬ 
vincialism, and of prejudice, have been exploded. Through the immi¬ 
gration that has come in from year to year, the country has grown 
greater, wealthier, stronger, and more progressive, until now it is a 
nation of over ninety million people with marvelously developed 
resources and a world power. 

In the work of the remarkable development of the entire country 
the foreign element and the naturalized citizen has done fully his 
share and fully contributed his quota. Immigration has aided, in a 
great measure and to a great extent, to build up and develop the 
entire count ly. The fusion and the intermingling of the different 
nationalities, represented in our population, have contributed to make 
us the great, the prosperous, and the progressive nation we are to-dav. 
Through their thrift, their industry, their toil, and their energy the 
immigrant classes have helped to add to our nation’s wealth and pro¬ 
mote our national prosperity. Our country needs these men of brawn 
and of muscle. It requires the hardy workers on its roads, in its fac¬ 
tories, in its mines, and in the hundred and one occupations where 
hard manual labor is required. 

Remember, also, that the American farmer boy no longer contents 
himself with life upon the farm. He seeks the opportunities which 
city life affords. He longs for the pleasures of large towns and cities. 
As quickly as he can abandon the rural life he has led he leaves the 
occupation of the field, I regret to say, and takes up what to him 
seems more attractive, more remunerative, and more alluring in 
the city. 


510 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


Many of the farms near to large towns and cities have been aban¬ 
doned by the natives. The work of the held and in the forest had to 
be done by immigrants who settle in country districts, for they go 
there anxious for work and eager to earn a living through honest toil. 
The native American, and the educated immigrant, too, will not, unless 
driven by extremity, take up the work of the shovel, the sledge, and 
the pickax. The laborious work at the blazing furnace and at the 
forge, in the construction of railroads, such as leveling the roads, lay¬ 
ing the rails, breaking stone, and tunneling mountains, and the work 
of digging the mines, and a score of similar pursuits that the common 
laborer follows, must, as a rule, be done by the immigrant classes. 
When this kind of labor is needed, what reasonable, sensible, rational 
man asks whether the laborer who is called upon to do it is literate 
or illiterate? 

But it must be said, too, of these laborers and toilers, and it stands 
to their credit, that wherever they have gone they have sought the 
opportunities which our American communities offer for education. 
They quickly learn the English, learn to read and write, and they 
encourage their children to take the advantages which our schools 
everywhere hold out to them. 

Immigration has aided to an immeasurable and enormous extent to 
open up the undeveloped sections of our country, and without going 
into the details, which will readily occur to our minds as we look 
over the great development of the Union and contemplate its variety 
of resources and its built-up aieas north, east, south, and west, we all 
know that America would never be the great, prosperous nation that 
she is were it not for the immigration that has come to our shores. 

I regret that so many restrictionists have in public (more frequently 
in private) expressed themselves against Russian, Roumanian, Gallician, 
Polish, Slavonian, Italian, and Hungarian immigration. I represent, 
in part, the city of New York. I passed my entire life there. My very 
intimate knowledge of the immigrant classes of these nationalities 
and the foreign-born population of New York qualifies me to speak of 
them. It is true that many of them came here penniless and that 
many came here also illiterate. The door of opportunity w T as closed 
to many of these people in their native land. They existed under 
conditions that deprived them of school opportunities. But, literate 
or illiterate, penniless or possessed of small means, they all enter into 
the spirit of American life. The}^ have not abused the hospital^ of 
the land. The}^ have been law-abiding. They live by honest toil. 
They seek and follow employment in the hundred and one different 
industries. Many of them—thousands and thousands of them—have 
prospered, and from the humblest beginnings have become trades¬ 
men, storekeepers, merchants, and business men in every avenue of 
commercial and industrial pursuit. Many of them—more, indeed, than 
anyone, in fact, imagines—have gone into the farming districts and en¬ 
tered upon agricultural pursuits. They have entered the shops and the 
factories and make good mechanics. Yet when many of them first 
landed they had little or no education, and some of them were illit¬ 
erate and they could not have passed the educational tests that the 
bills before us contemplate. What a folly it would have been—nav, 
what a detriment to the country it would have been—if these helpful, 
useful, splendid men and women who have, each in their own way, by 
dint of labor and honest toil, contributed to the welfare of the land, 



HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


511 


had been excluded because they could not read or write to satisfy an 
educational test. 

The immigrant classes, the foreign born of whom I have spoken, 
were anxious for citizenship. When they became such, they per¬ 
formed their duties as well as other American citizens. They have 
made good American citizens. They have proven themselves worthy 
of the citizenship which they prize as a precious boon. They have 
learned to prize American citizenship because its cardinal duty is love 
of human freedom, and the corner stone of the Government that con¬ 
fers it is civil and religious liberty. They have manifested in a hun¬ 
dred and one ways their love of our American institutions. Their 
patriotism has been as intense as that of the native American. They 
are loyal to our country. They are devoted to the flag. They have 
been thrift}^, and the wealth of our savings banks and the names of 
their depositors all testify to that fact. They have always exhibited 
an anxiety to work, to improve the condition of their families, and 
take care of their dependents. Wherever these men have settled 
values of real estate have risen, and in the grand sum total the wealth 
of the State and the nation has been increased. 

Oh, these foreign born, with a keen appreciation of America’s aims, 
her ideals, and her mission, have served this country in the darkest 
hours of our country’s need! On the held of battle these foreign born 
have proven themselves heroes of undaunted courage. When the 
clash of arms came and men were called to fight for the honor and 
integrity of the American flag, these men of foreign birth, these men 
who were immigrants—some of whom were illiterate when they landed 
on our shores—went to the front and exemplified their patriotism for 
America and their love for the land of their adoption. 

Reference was made in these hearings to the east side of New York. 
I tell you the immigrants who have come there—mainly Jewish, Rus¬ 
sian, Roumanian, Gallician, Austrian, Hungarian, German, and Ital¬ 
ian—have made desirable acquisitions to our great city. They are 
toilers and not idlers. Their men are industrious and their women 
virtuous. They live u in the sweat of their brow.” There are no 
more thrifty and industrious people anywhere in the world than these 
men and women. The} 7, abide within the law. Crime with them is 
rare. They are home builders. They love their families. The older 
people exhibit keen anxiety for the education of their children. Those 
' who can only read the Yiddish read with keen interest and with great 
intelligence the papers that are published over there on the east side 
in the Yiddish. These Yiddish newspapers are well edited. They 
convey to the foreigners as fully and as well as the English newspa¬ 
pers do the news of the day. They contain excellent reading matter, 
which tends not only to the enlightenment of their readers, but to their 
Americanization. These papers, published in the \ iddish, having a 
large circulation among the immigrant classes over there, are powerful 
factors to enlighten, to educate, and to Americanize. They have 
instilled into the minds of these foreign born a deeper appreciation of 
the benefits and advantages that America holds out to them. 

The schools over there are filled with children of the immigrants. 
Some of these children were born here. Some were born over on the 
other side of the Atlantic. Manv of those who came from the other 
side of the Atlantic were illiterate. But these children learn with a 
rapidity that is simply remarkable, and does them great credit. They 


512 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


are thirsty for knowledge. The} 7 learn quickly. Their teachers speak 
highly of them. Step by step their ambition runs higher and higher 
as they grow older. My heart thrills with joy when I go, as I fre¬ 
quently do, to witness the exercises in these schools and note the re¬ 
markable progress of these foreign born children—these children of 
the people who have come from the lands of oppression and tyranny— 
and observe how intense is their patriotism for the American flag. 

It would, indeed, be a great lesson to those who constantly preach 
restriction of immigration if they would spend some time in our great 
cities and go into the different institutions that have been established 
for the care and the welfare and the betterment and the education of 
the immigrant classes. These institutions are many. The libraries 
are tilled with the immigrant classes to which I have referred. Their 
love for knowledge and their desire for education are greater than most 
men have any idea. Institutions of every kind, made up in their 
membership in a great measure of men of foreign birth, will be 
found not only in my city, but in the other large cities of this Union, 
for the care, for the welfare, for the education, and for the Ameri¬ 
canization of the immigrant classes. I could use up an hour in detailing 
the names of these varied, well-managed institutions, and the splendid 
fraternal orders, and the benevolent organizations that have done so 
much toward the uplift, toward the betterment, toward the educa¬ 
tional advancement, and the Americanization of the foreign born who 
have made our country their home. 1 refrain from taxing your pa¬ 
tience or from burdening this record with these details, and I fear 
were I to make mention of these splendidly maintained institutions, 
these fraternal orders, these benevolent and charitable organizations, 

I might do some injustice by unintentional omission. 

Surely you will not wonder that many of the immigrants, to which 
we have mainly had reference in these hearings, may not be able to 
pass an educational test. The Jewish immigrant, the Russian, the 
Roumanian, and the Gallician, as well as some of the others I have 
mentioned, come from where oppression and tyranny exist. They 
lived under intolerable conditions. They were the subjects of perse¬ 
cution and of religious bigotry and hatred. They fled from the rule 
of despotism and from scenes of cruelty. They were proscribed in 
their native lands. They were denied the equal protection of the law 
in their lands. They were maltreated and, without rhyme or reason, 
downtrodden, and by the fanatics w r ere despised. Do you wonder 
then if they lack the learning that the educational tests proposed by the 
bills would require. But these men and women once breathing the 
air of American liberty, quickly enter into the spirit of American life. 
They value our American institutions. They prove themselves grateful 
to America for the blessings that they here enjoy. 

I oppose, with all the power I am capable of possessing, the pro¬ 
posed requirement in one of the bills before this committee that every 
alien in the United States within one year from the passage of the bill 
take out a certificate of residence containing a description and photo¬ 
graph of himself under penalty of deportation. Such a provision is 
absurd. It is un-American. It is opposed to the teachings of the 
fathers who founded this Republic. It is opposed to the genius of our 
American institutions. It speaks and it breathes the spirit of Euro¬ 
pean despotism. It teaches a deep-rooted prejudice against the for¬ 
eign born. It is a revival of the know-nothing spirit. Its effect is to 


HEARING ON IMMIGRATION BILLS. 


513 


treat the unnaturalized alien as we would the criminal classes. It 
places him under a surveillance more closely than the surveillance 
which is founded under the Russian system in despotic Russia. It is 
intended to create a condition to restrict, if not in a great measure to 
prevent, immigration. Think of the policy of exile it would create. 1 
dismiss the subject because I cannot believe that, imbued with the 
spirit of Americanism, you can ever get an American Congress, so long 
as we shall revere the teachings of the fathers of the Constitution, 
so long as we shall cherish American liberty, to pass such harsh, 
unnecessary and absurd provisions. 

I have only in a general way presented my views against these pro¬ 
posed restrictive measures. 1 avoid now again entering into details. 

Sufficient has been supplied to this committee, both in the hearings 
and by myself and some of my colleagues, in our talks and conferences 
amongst us on the subject, that it becomes unnecessary for me to add 
to the figures and details with which we are all so familiar. 

My opposition to the measures comes from no selfish motive. I do 
not speak from partiality for or favoritism to any class. I speak from 
the standpoint of a broad and liberal American, looking to the interests 
of my country and hoping for an ever increasing prosperity of our 
nation. 

The present immigration laws, when properly enforced, are rea¬ 
sonably sufficient to safeguard the county against .the admission of 
undesirable people. 

1 trust, Mr. Chairman, that these propositions will be rejected by 
the committee and voted down. 

(The committee thereupon went into executive session.) 

49090—10-33 








INDEX. 


A. 

Page. 

Adler, Cyrus, request to appear before committee. 126 

Allevi, Luigi, reference to, by Mrs. Quackenbos. 421-423 

Andrews, W. F., statement of. 96 

Anderson, T. J., Topeka, Kans., letter of. T73 

Avery, N. P., Chamber of Commerce, Holyoke, Mass., letter of. 178 

B. 

Bennet, Hon. Win. S., statement of. 259-476 

Burnett, Hon. John L.: 

Statement of.. 383-414 

Reference to, by Mr. Brooks. 221 

Bennett, S. W., Jr. 0. U. A. M. of Ohio, resolutions... 90 

Berg, G. H., Nordsjernan, foreign paper delegation.. 128 

Behar, N., National Liberal Immigration League. 128 

Berlin, H.. Federation of Jewish Organizations, New York. 128 

Berko, G. D., Amerika, Magyar Nepszva. 128 

Beard, M. R., Sacramento, Cal., letter from. 158 

Bentley, C. H., San Francisco, Cal., letter from. 159 

Beardsley, H. M., mayor of Kansas City, letter from. 185 

Bell, James A., Harrisburg, Pa., letter from. 202 

Beck, labor commissioner, Wisconsin, letter from. 216 

Benham, Wm. R., reference to, by Mrs. Quackenbos. 439 

Boggs, J. T., Farmers’ Union of South Carolina. 90 

Briggs, Walter J., Austria, foreign newspaper men. 128 

Brown, Geo. R., Board of Trade, Little Rock, Ark., letter from. 150 

Brock way, Z. R., mayor of Elmira, N. Y., letter from. 191 

Brooks, B. B., governor of Wyoming, letter from. 216 

Brooks, T. J., Farmers’ Union, statement of. 217 

Broad, John H., State School of Agriculture, New York. 382 

Brown, Martin B., reference to, by Mrs. Quackenbos. 423 

Broad, J. H., letter of Representative Sabath. 471 

Braun, Marcus, special inspector, reference to. 504- 

Bingham, Theo. A., police commissioner, reference to. 403 

Blye, H. C., reference to, by Mrs. Quackenbos. 423 

Burke, John, governor of North Dakota, letter from. 198 

Butcher, Henry A., Denver, Colo., letter from. 160 

C. 

Cable, Benj. S.: 

Statement of. 96 

Letter relative to head tax. 132-133 

Campbell, Richard K.: 

Statement relative to naturalization. 23-30 

Statement regarding educational test.-. 70 

Capparucci, A., Opinione, foreign newspaper delegation. 128 

Cavanaugh, John, letter from. 280 

Caughy, Charles M., American consul, reference to, by Mr. Burnett. 389 

Chamberlain, Geo. E., Salem, Oreg., letter from... 202 

Chamberlain, E. T., Commissioner of Navigation, regarding seamen. 144 

Chamberlain, I. D., Knights of Labor.. 95 

Clark, Aaron, former mayor of New York City, letter to. 328-369 

Clay, Henry, reference to, by Mr. Keliher. 369 


515 
















































516 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Clark, H. C., Syracuse, letter from. 197 

Clute, J. W., mayor, Schenectady, N. Y., letter from. 196 

Clyde, George A., Rome, N. Y., letter from. 195 

Collins, C. V., statement regarding alien criminals. 41 

Comer, B. B., governor of Alabama, letter fr m. 154 

Cox, Wm. H., Maysville, Ky., letter from. 174 

Crocker, J. F., Chamber of Commerce, Boston, letter from. 177 

Crawford, C. I., governor of South Dakota, letter from. 208 

Cummins, A. B., governor of Iowa, letter from. 172 

Cutler, Harry, Providence, R. I., statement of. 360-364 

Cutler, Jno. C., governor of Utah, letter from. 211 

D. 

Darlington, Thos., reference to, by Mr. Burnett. 400 

Davis, Brig. Gen. Geo. B., statement of, relative to naturalization. 11-17 

Deneen, C. S., governor of Illinois, letters from. 378-379 

Dickey, J. T., Farmers’ Union of Georgia. 87 

Dupree, G. D., Farmers’ Union of Louisiana. 94 

E. 

Earl, Charles, Department of Commerce and Labor: 

Statement of... 105 

Letter about aliens from Mexico. 136-139 

Earl, J.C.: 

Bowery Mission, reference to. 251 

Western jobs for immigrants. 257 

Eliot, C. W., letter from, on immigration. 280 

Elkus, Abram I., statement of. 339-348 

F. 

Fay, T., Houston and Texas Railroad, letter from. 209 

Farmer, L. P., reference to by Mrs. Quackenbos. 423 

Felton, S. M., Chicago, Ill., letter from. 167 

Ferris, A. W., reference to by Mr. Brooks . 220 

Fitch, W. F., Marquette, Mich., letter from. 179 

Flickinger, S. J., secretary to governor of Ohio, letter from. 199 

Fluhart, Theo., Chamber of Commerce, Dayton, Ohio, letter from. 201 

Flynt, Josiah, letter to, from Andrew D. White. 504 

Finley, W. W., reference to by Mr. Burnett. 405 

Folk, Jos. W., governor of Missouri, letter from. 185 

Fowler, T. P., New York, letter from.'. 194 

Frick, A. W., Nebraska labor board, letter from. 257 

Frugone, F. L., Bolletino della Sera, foreign newspaper delegation. 128 

G. 

Goldfogle, Hon. H. M., statement of, separation of families. 56-61,508-513 

Gasson, T. I., letter from. 281 

Garvin, Thos. H., clerk house of representatives, Pennsylvania, resolutions 

adopted. 86 

Gendel, Paul, 15-year old immigrant, letter from. 297 

Greenfield, Martin, reference to, by Mrs. Quackenbos. 433 

Gruenberg, John: 

Reference to, by Mr. Burnett. 396-397 

Report of, relative to immigration. 506 

Griffith, W. G., New York, statement of. 66-68 

Grella, E. M., Girnale Italiano, foreign newspaper delegation. 128 

Gooding, T. R., Boise, Idaho, letter from. 166 

Gnitchell, F. W., mayor, Trenton, N. J., letter from. 189 

H. 

Hayes, Hon. E. A.: 

Extract from speech, statement of T. J. Brooks. 238 

Reference to speech he made, T. J. Brooks.* 242 


















































INDEX. 


517 


Page. 

Hayes, J. W., Knights of Labor, reference to by T. J. Brooks. 219 

Hayes, John W., resolutions of Knights of Labor. 95 

Haas, A. J., Cleveland, Ohio, clerk of naturalization court. 11 

Haynes, J. C., mayor, Minneapolis, Minn., letter from. 181 

Harrison, F. B., statement of. . 375-378 

Hall, Prescott F.: 

Author, reference to by Mr. Burnett. 395 

Quotation from his book. 69 

Hanson, J. F., Macon, Ga., letter from. 165 

Harris, George B., Chicago, Ill., letter from.. 167 

Harahan, J. T., Chicago, Ill., letter from. 171 

Haussling, Jacob, mayor, Newark, N. J., letter from. 188 

Hammerling, L. N., president Foreign Editors’ Association. 128 

Hanauer, A. M., Pittsburg, Pa., letter from. 205 

Halpern, Morris, N. Y., cousin of alien. 358 

Herbruck, C. G., Jr. 0. U. A. M. Ohio, resolutions. 90 

Heller, Isaac, Boston, Mass., telegram to Hon. J. F. O’Connell. 303 

Hill, James J.: 

Reference to, by Hon. J. L. Burnett. 412 

Reference to, by Mrs. Quackenbos. 449 

St. Paul, Minn., letter from. 183 

St. Paul, Minn., newspaper clipping reference. 239 

Himmell, ^Joseph, Georgetown University, letter from. 281 

Hirsh, Baron, farming colony in New Jersey, reference to. 269 

Higgins, James H., governor, Rhode Island, letter from. 205 

Holder, A. E., American Federation of Labor, statement of. Ill 

Hoch, E. W., governor of Kansas, letter from.. 173 

Howell, Hon. Benj. F., letter from John J. D. Trenor. 150 

Howland, Hon. Paul, statement relative to naturalization. 1-11 

Hudson, H. P., Farmers’ Alliance, Tennessee. 87 


J. 


Jackson, M. G., Farmers’ Union, Texas. 87 

Johnson, Tom. L., Cleveland, Ohio, letter from. 200 

Johnson, L. E., Norfolk and Western Railroad, letter from. 215 

Johnson, John F., governor, Minnesota, letter from. 181 

Jones, W. B., Chamber of Commerce, Albany, N. Y., letter from. 189 

Judson, H. P., University of Chicago, letter from. 280 

Julin, Charles, executive secretary Connecticut, letter from. 161 

K. 

Keliher, Hon. J. A.: 

Statement of..— 365-375 

Statement of, naturalization certificates. 374 

Kamaiky, L., Jewish Daily News, foreign newspaper delegation. 128 

Kavanaugh, W. M., Little*Rock, Ark., letter from. 158 

Keefe, D! J., Commissioner General, reference to by Hon. J. L. Burnett... 396-398 

Kite, E. W., Jr. O. U. A. M. of Ohio, resolutions./.. 90 

Killen, W. H., labor commissioner, Wisconsin, letter from. 216 

Kohler, Max J., New York, statement of.. 348-360 

Kozma, Dr. A., Szabadsag, foreign newspaper delegation.. 128 

Krauskopf, Reverend Doctor, Jewish school in Pennsylvania. 269 

L. 

Latimer, Hon. A. C., reference to by Hon. J. L. Burnett.. .. 271 

Lafean, E. C., National Council Junior Order United American Mechanics- 489 

Lauchheimer, Col. Chas. H., U. S. Marine Corps, naturalization statement... 23 

Le Lanne, Frank D., president National Board of Trade, letters. 150-151 

Lichliter, Rev. M. D., of Pennyslvania, statement of... 489 

Lucaciu, Dr. E. L., Romanul in America, foreign newspaper delegation. 128 

Lupton, George F., San Antonio, Tex., letter from. 209 

Lvons, Pat. J., mayor of Mobile, Ala., letter from. 155 

Lyons, Thomas J., labor board, Maine, letter from. 175 

Lynch, E. J., labor board, Minnesota, letter from. 182 






















































518 


INDEX. 


M. 

Page. 

Mack, Julian, Chicago, Ill., letter from. 379 

Marks, Joe, Russian tailor, reference to by Mrs. Quackenbos. 420 

Mann, Elias P., mayor, Troy, N Y., letter from. 197 

Marshall, Louis, New York, statement of. 305-332 

Maupin, W. M., Nebraska, letter from. 257 

MacPherran, E. W., land commissioner, Michigan, letter from... 180 

McKinley, William (President), reference to, by Hon. J. L. Burnett. 401 

McHarg, Ormsby, former Assistant Secretary Commerce and Labor, letter of. 488 
Mitchell, John: 

Quotation from statement of, by J. H. Patten. 82-83 

Reference to, by Hon. John L. Burnett. 404 

McClinton, M. G., National Council, Jr. O. U. A. M. 93 

McCarthy, Carlton, mayor of Richmond, Va., letter from. 243 

Miller, L. E., Jewish Daily Warheit. 128 

Milner, R. F., Texas agricultural department, letter from. 208 

Mooney, G. W., speaker of Ohio house, resolutions adopted. 85 

Morkezel, N. A., in Al-Hoda, foreign newspaper delegation. 128 

Mobile, Ala., Chamber of Commerce, resolutions. 155 

Morris, T. O., mayor of Nashville, Tenn., letter from. 208 

Morse, S. F. B., extract from paper by. 327 

N. 

Nagel, Charles, Secretary Commerce and Labor, reference to, by T. J. Brooks. 218 

Nelson, O. O., Montgomery, Ala., letter from. 166 

Norton, Charles D., statement regarding head-tax receipts. 131 

Noyes, John N., member National Council Jr. O. U. A. M. 489 

Nye, W. G., Minneapolis, Minn., letter from. 182 

O. 

Overman, Hon. Lee S., speech of, at New York. 42-45 

Orbach, Rev. C. L., Slovak v Amerike. . 128 

Otis, Harrison G., reference to, by Hon. J. A. Keliher. 368 

Oliver, Gulda, immigrant excluded. 358 

P. 

Page, Louis F., Brooklyn, N. Y., letter from. 67 

Parrott, S. F., Macon, Ga., letter from... 164 

Parsons, Hon. Herbert, statement of, moral turpitude. 61-65 

Patten, J. H., secretary National Immigration Restriction League, statement of. 31-68 

Patten, J. H., statement of.. 68-95 

Patton, K. S., vice-consul at Rome, Italy, affidavit... 426-^431 

Pennington, E., Minneapolis, Minn., letter from. 184 

Piptore, Thos., Italian magazine. 128 

Pope, J. W., Atlanta, Ga., letter from. 163 

Potter, Right Rev. Henry C., bishop, New York, letter from. 192 

Powderly, T. V.: 

Reference to, by T. J. Brooks... 240 

Letter to, by Mrs. Mary G. Quackenbos. 417-418 

Reference to, by Mrs. Quackenbos. 443 

Report of... 460-463 

Planches, E. Mayor, Italian ambassador, letter of. 488 

Pumpelly, J. C., New York, letter of... 380-381 

Q. 

Quackenbos, Mrs. Mary Grace, statement of. 415-467 

Quinlan, James, New York, letter from. 192 

R. 

Raymond, A. V., Schenectady, N. Y., letter from. 196 

Read, Albert M., National Board of Trade, Washington, D. C., letter from..." 151 
Rea, Samuel, Pennsylvania Railroad, Philadelphia, letter from. 204 














































INDEX. 


519 


Reynolds, James B.: 

Treatment of immigrants.. 37-40 

Report on Ellis Island, New York. 52-53 

Reference to, by Hon. William S. Bennet. 76 

Reynaudi, L., commissioner general, Rome, letter of.,. 488 

Reilly, James M., secretary Board of Trade, Newark, N. J., letter of. 188 

Rhett, R. G., mayor Charleston, S. C., letter of. 206 

Ripley, E. P., Chicago, III., letter from. 168 

Roe, A. A., Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, statement of. 235-243 

Ross, David, secretary bureau of labor, Illinois, letter from. 172 

Robinson, L. R., New York City, peonage case. * 433 

Roosevelt, Theodore, quotationfrommessage, Hon. J. L. Burnett. 401-462,497, 498,503 
Russell, W. T., Baltimore, Md., letter from.. 176 


S. 


Sabath, Hon. A. J., statement of. 467 

Sargent, F. P.: 

Commissioner-General, report of. 460 

Quotation from statement regarding educational qualifications. 69-70 

Salvatore, Grannaugeli, reference to by Mrs. Quackenbos.. 425 

Sanders, Leon, of New York, statement of. 337-339 

Schwab, G. H., of North German Lloyd, statement before Industrial Com¬ 
mission . 31 

Schwald, R. : 

State Council Jr. O. U. A. M., Ohio. 90 

Member National Council Jr. O. U. A. M.. 489 

Schuler, Charles, commissioner of labor, Louisiana. 175 

Schurman, J. G., Ithaca, N. Y., letter from. 281 

Schwartz, S. S., New York, reference to by Mrs. Quackenbos. 442 

Sebastian, Jno., Chicago, Ill., letter from.. 170 

Seperstein, Jewish Morning Journal. 128 

Sevier, L., Norfolk, Va., letter from. 213 

Sheldon, F. B., Columbus, Ohio, letter from. 200 

Soleau, W. L.: 

Disbursing agent, Department of Commerce and Labor, statement of. 96 

Tables showing head tax. 133 

Scott, Thos.K., Augusta, Ga., letter from... 164 

Sheldon, Geo. L., governor of Nebraska, letter from. 186 

Smith, Hoke, Georgia, reference to by T. J. Brooks.. 227 

Strauss, Oscar: 

Former Secretary Commerce and Labor, reference to... 239 

Relative to new irrigation law. 36 

Steadwell, B. B., La Crosse, Wis., reference to by J. H. Patten. 33 

Stickney, A. B , St. Paul, Minn., letter from. 184 

Stocking, William, Chamber of Commerce, Detroit, Mich., letter from. 178 

Stokes, Edward C., governor of New Jersey, letter from. 187 

Stevens, Geo. W., Richmond, Va\, letter from. 214 

Sulzer, Hon. William, statement relative to separation of families. 53-55 

Sulzberger, C. S., of New York, statement of. 282-305 

Svarc, Yen, of Cleveland, Ohio, statement of. 333-337 


T. 


Taft, William H., reference to, by T. J. Brooks. 

Taylor, Jesse: 

Jr. O. U. A. M. of Ohio. 

National Council Jr. O. U. A. M .. 

J. P. Thompson, Boston, Mass., quotation from his work. 

Thompson, C. A., secretary of state, Ohio, resolutions of legislature 

Treadway, F. W., president Ohio senate, resolutions of. 

Trenor, John J. D., New York : 

National Board of Trade... 

Letter of inquiry on immigration. 

Index to letters received. 

Letter of. 


220 


90 

93 

. 329 

85 
85 

. 150 

. 152 

153-154 
. 382 


















































520 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Truesdale, W. H., New York, Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, 

letter from. . 191 

Tuttle, Lucius, Boston, .Boston and Maine Railroad, letter from. 177 

U. 

Underwood, F. P., New York, letter from. 194 

V. 

Valgevec, V. J., Glas Navoda, foreign newspaper delegation. 128 

Van Asmus, H. D. C., Grand Rapids, Mich., letter from.... 179 

Van Deman, Esther B., affidavit of, regarding labor agents in Italy. 426-431 

Vicario, Jno., Avaldo Italiano, foreign newspaper delegation. 128 

Vlasto, S. J., editor Atlantis, reference to, by Mrs. Quackenbos. 439 

W. 

Watson, E. J., labor commissioner, South Carolina, letter from... 207 

Watson, J. B., Farmers’ Union, South Carolina. 90 

Watchorn, Robert, New York: 

Crippled alien admitted. 57 

Reference to administration of office. 38 

Watson, E. J., South Carolina, reference to, by T. J. Brooks. 226 

Wazeter, L. F., Tygodik Polski, foreign newspaper delegation. 128 

Williams, William, New T York: 

Reference to, succeeding Robert Watchorn. 37-52 

Indorsement of his administration. 67 

Reference to his work as commissioner. 76 

Reference to, by T. J. Brooks. 219 

Quotation from New York Tribune.. 239 

Report of, on immigration, etc. 505 

Weitzel, John J., Cincinnati: 

Jr. 0. U. A. M., Ohio. 94 

National Council Jr. O. U. A. M. 489-501 

Wiley, H. A., lieutenant commander, statement regarding naturalization- 17 

Williams, J. W., clerk house of delegates, Virginia. 36 

Williams, Arthur, Denver, Colo., letter from. 160 

Webb, Wesley, state board of agriculture, Dover, Del.. 162 

Werwinski, Jos. A., Gonico Polski, foreign newspaper delegation. 128 

Wickersham, George W., Attorney-General, approving letter of Charles Earl.. 139 

Wilson, Horace, mayor of Wilmington, Del., letter from. 162 

Williamson, W. W., Savannah, Ga., letter from. 165 

Wilgus, S. D., New York, reference to, by T. J. Brooks. 220 

Whitlock, Brand, mayor, Toledo, Ohio, ietter from. 201 

White, Andrew D., ambassador to Germany, letter from. 505 

Wheeler, W. R., San Francisco, Cal., letter from.,. 488 

Woods, M. M., National Council Jr. O. U. A. M. 93 

Wolf, Simon, Washington, D. C.: 

Request for hearing. 126 

Statement of. 274-279 

RESOLUTIONS. 

American Federation of Labor: 

Convention at Pittsburg. 112 

Convention at Minneapolis. 112 

Convention at Denver. 113 

Convention at Toronto. 113 

Resolutions relative to musicians. 120 

Quotation from proceedings at convention, November, 1909 . 84 

Alabama immigration conference, June, 1905. 226 

American Association of Foreign Language Newspapers, resolutions. 127-128 

Assembly of State of Ohio.. 85 

American Puritv League. Burlington, Iowa. 95 



















































INDEX. 


521 


Page. 

Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen: 

Convention at Buffalo, N. Y. 95 

Convention at Columbus, Ohio.” 243 

Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union. 86, 87-89 

Farmers’ Union of Louisiana. 94 

Farmers’ National Union of Memphis, Tenn.: 

Resolution No. 1. 114 

Resolution No. 2. 115 

Farmers’ National Union, convention at Birmingham, Ala. 218 

General Assembly, Knights of Labor, convention November 9, 1908 . 95 

Georgia Federation of Labor. 92 

Immigration convention, Tampa, Fla. 88 

League of Republican Clubs, Syracuse, N. Y. 382 

Native American National Convention: 

Philadelphia, July 4, 1845 . 328 

New York, June,'1837. 328 

National Council Junior Order United American Mechanics. 88-93 

Ohio legislature, March, 1909. 489 

Patriotic Sons of America, of Pennsylvania. 95 

Senate of State of Virginia... 86-225 

State Council Jr. O U. A. M.: 

Ohio.90-94 

Maryland . 91 

State Camp, P. 0. S. of A., Pennsylvania.. 91 

State Council Jr. 0. U. A. M., New York. 66 


HEAD TAX. 


American Association of Foreign Newspapers. 127-129 

Bennet, Hon. Win. S., statement of.. 70-75 

Burnett, Hon. John L., statement of... 384-414 

Cable, Benj. S., Commerce and Labor, statement of. 96-111 

Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union, Birmingham, Ala. 218 

Holder, Arthur E., American Federation of Labor, statement of. 118 

Lichliter, Rev. M. D., National Council Jr. O. U. A. M., statement of. 489-501 

Marshall, Louis, New York, statement of. 317-318 

Norton, Charles D., Treasury Department, receipts from head tax. 131 

Patten, J. H., Boston, Mass., statement of. 31-53-79 

Sabath, Hon. A. J., statement of. 467-488 

Soleau, W. L., Commerce and Labor, tables showing head tax.. 133-136 

Weitzel, John J., National Council Jr. O. U. A. M.... . 501-507 

Wolff, Simon, Washington, statement of. 275 

IMMIGRANT FUND. 

Patten, J. H., Boston, Mass., statement of. 34 

Cable, Benj. S., Commerce and Labor, statement of.96-111 

ILLITERACY. 

Burnett, Hon. J. L., statement of. 383-414 

Griffith, Wm. B., New York Jr. O. U. A. M., statement of. 67 

Harrison, Hon. F. B., statement of. 375-378 

Holder, Arthur E., American Federation of Labor, statement of. 113 

Keliher, Hon. J. A., statement of. 366-375 

Lichliter, Rev. M. D., National Council Jr. 0. U. A. M., statement of. 489-501 

Marshall, Louis, New York, statement of. 324-325 

Patten, J. H., Boston, Mass., statement of. 68-75-84-95 

Sabath, Hon. A. J., statement of. 467-488 

Sanders, Leon, New T York, statement of. 337-339 

Svarc, Yen, Cleveland, Ohio, statement of. 332-337 

Weitzel, John J., National Council Jr. O. U. A. M., statement of. 501-507 

Wolf, Simon, Washington, D. C., statement of... 275-277 


MORAL TURPITUDE. 


Parsons, Hon. Herbert, statement of 


61-65 



















































522 


INDEX. 


NATURALIZATION. 

Page. 

Discharged sailors, soldiers, etc. . 1-29-141-149 

SEPARATION OP FAMILIES. 

Sulzer, Hon. William, statement of. 53-55 

Goldfogle, Hon. Henry M., statement of.56-61 

STEERAGE RATES. 

Patten, J. H., Boston, Mass., statement of. 32-43-44-45 

LABOR AGENTS. 

Quackenbos, Mrs. Mary Grace, New York, statement of. 415-467 

o 


<5r 

















































































































■ 








































■ 


























































































































































































































































* 




























































































' 






















































- 












































































































































































































































































